I get the network effect of having all the other kids with phones.

I don’t think the network effect is the only factor to consider here. Kids are at real risk of social ostracization and bullying by their peers if they do not have a smartphone. And that’s dangeous in of itself.

I’m not sure if the dangers of being ostricised and bullied are more significant than the dangers presented by owning a smartphone. Either way, I don’t think it’s a simple decision for a parent to make.

That this prejudice will follow these children into adulthood is perhaps the bleakest part.

This is the thing that horrifies me the most about this story. Adults, schools, and parents are setting an abominable example to these children.

I can only imagine the confusion and shame a child must experience when being told to hide their insulin pumps, their wheelchairs, their hearing aids, etc. And I’m frightened to think of the pupils who feel empowered to “other” their classmates because they are being “othered” by the adults. It’s a clear example of how we teach children bigotry.

An experience from my childhood which still sticks with me to this day is from when attending an ultra-orthodox church. I was maybe 5 years old and tried to follow my dad into a restricted area and being stopped by the priest, being told “sorry, only boys are allowed back here”.

As a child I was taught that adults are always right, and to listen to them. This may very well be my earliest memory of being taught sexism, which only got reinforced throughout my life due to trusting the adults at this church and through trusting my very religious right-wing father. Even as a kid I recognised that what I was witnessing was unfair, but I did not have the power, the understanding, nor the will to challenge this unfairness because the adults must know what they’re doing… right?

My cynical ass cannot stop my eyes rolling into the back of my head when I see “tax breaks for billionaires”. But I’ll try to put that entire ugly can of worms to the side for now.

Ultimately the devil will be in the details as to how this is implemented, and unfortunately at this stage it seems there’s not a whole lot of information as to exactly this will work. From the article: “There’s still uncertainty around how the government will approve eligibility for the projects. […] adding more guidance is due to be provided in the near future.”

I’ve got so many questions. Like, how much of the land has to be rewilded? Will this land be regularly monitored and checked? How are we going to decide whether or not a plot of land has been sufficiently rewilded? Can the landowner do any sort of rewilding even if it’s unsuitable for the surrounding area and it’s needs? Is there anything to stop someone from simply creating a monoculture conifer forest, which doesn’t provide a great benefit for wildlife?

Are there any measures in place to stop land owners from demolishing these rewilded areas after it no longer becomes profitable to keep them that way? Can someone just create a monoculture conifer forest and then cut it down for timber once the inheretance has gone through on the land? Is there going to be a cap on the tax break itself? If the tax break ends up saving more money than the cost of rewilding an area and then demolishing it afterwards then this is just going to be another way for billionaires to dodge taxes whilst contributing nothing to the UK.

I’m skeptical to say the least.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The headline leads one to believe he’s an indiscriminate animal killing monster.

He is being indiscriminate. He literally said that “all wild animals have to be culled”. There are tens of thousands of species in the UK. There are maybe only a handful of these species where you could possibly argue that culling is required (when ignoring viable alternative solutions).

Now I have zero idea what that looks like in the UK.

It concerns me greatly how easily you trust Drax and how confidently you speak regarding this topic despite knowing nothing about what healthy populations of wildlife in the UK look like.

Drax owns thousands of acres of farmland, he has a vested interest in protecting livestock over wildlife. That alone should make all of us skeptical about anything he says.

He’s calling for culling to create healthy populations.

The primary reason we’re culling badgers is because of the issues they cause to the owners of livestock. It’s nothing to do with creating a healthy population of badgers.

Drax says that deer need to be culled because otherwise the health of deer will deteriorate. That’s nonesense. Deer are culled because they destroy vegetataion, especially young sapling trees, which is only a problem because we have systematically elimiated all large land predators in the UK over the course of hundreds of years (e.g. wolves, lynx, bears).

If it was about creating healthy populations of wildlife then it would be much more effective to reintroduce these large land predators back into the UK instead of culling. But it’s never been about creating healthy populations of wildlife, it’s about making as much money possible through farming. Therefore reintroducing large land predators is absolutely not an option for livestock owners because large land predators will also prey on livestock.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator