General Discussion
Black Swans
Looks as though Dawlish may be losing the black swans.
Tests by the enviromental agency have found that the water from the brook which runs into the sea is polluted.
Why have they only just found this out, the swans have been here for the 23 years I have.
It would be good to live long enough for a day to come when the most serious pollution in the sea is from a small number of black swans and other assorted waterfowl.
Until then, if something can be done at reasonable cost then all well and good. Otherwise, please let us live with it and continue to enjoy one of Dawlish's best features.
I agree Don. It was on the local news, seems it could be either the swans or a blue flag.
If the swans have been here for the 20 odd years I have, how did Dawlish manage to have the flag before.
Why are the swans being picked out, many other water foul also enjoy residence.
If Cllr Prowse and her colleagues had not wasted all that money on CCTV, which by the way has not caught and prosecuted one criminal, they would have the money to dredge the brook and rectity the aviary problem, which was condemned last year. but Cllrs egos prevailed.
I agree with User 4549. If the council in their (un)wisdom had not wasted £80,000 of council tax-payers' money on a useless CCTV surveillance system which does not even work at night & has not been responsible for apprehending even one miscreant (just look at the vandalism on the Strand, for example), they might now be able to afford the £30,000 for cleaning up the Brook. Incidentally, why does it cost this much? Where does this figure for the clean-up come from?
What a load of old tosh!! How much pollution do the swans create?? There must be thousands of gallons of water flowing to the sea everyday. The amount of excrement produced by all the wild fowl on the stream must surely be insignificant compared to the rubbish that actually gets washed up on the beach, along with dirty nappies, sanitary towels and the like. Why, after so many years are the swans being blamed for water pollution???
I think there is a lot of vandalism in Dawlish which isn't reported.
The Sports Pavilion at Sandy Lane was broken into and the windows smashed a couple of weeks ago. The same weekend the refreshment hut was also broken into and the toilet windows at the car park smashed, also a coach in the coach park vandalised.
Maybe the CCTV cameras would have been of more use in that area.
As for cleaning the brook maybe get together a group of volunteers led by a few of our councilors!!!! Just a thought.
On the basis that he wants to provoke a reaction, I think the best approach is to ignore him. With luck, when he grows up he will start to make useful contributions.
The news item (see News) suggests that the "pond" in question is the one in the waterfowl encloure, i.e. not the brook.
As the swans are on the brook, not in the enclosure, I cannot see why they may be threatened.
From the cited Telegraph article:
"The Environment Agency spokesman said: "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the wildfowl are contributing, although they are not totally to blame."
The council said an impact study by a public analyst laboratory found the waterfowl pond was not having an adverse effect on the quality of water in the brook."
I can't help feeling that the "Black Swans Threatened" headlines do not reflect the reality.
So, utterly predictably, Drugs User 4549 turns this thread into an anti CCTV rant. Predictable and oh so very dull.
Cassandra uses the word "miscreant", just like "you know who". Pal, why don't you just use the same user name on here, instead of making an arse of yourself by posting the same drivel under different aliases? Boring!
Rather than whining about the problem at the brook - why don't you idlers do something about it? Keyboard warriors like Drugs User 4549 are completely insufferable with their self-righteous indignation, whilst sitting on their lazy fat back-sides and doing nowt about it themselves.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was one of the muppets on here who has got more time on their hands than they know what to do with, who reported this perceived "problem".
Roy. Aged 41 and three quarters.
Roy,
Thanks. The post expresses your views very clearly. I didn't understand wibble.
I also wondered why CCTV was introduced to the topic.
Don
Roy, Please give me your name if you have the courage and I will sue you for libel and slander. I have never taken drugs in my life.
I await more WIBBLE or should it be DRIVEL.
Drugs User 4549 wibbled:
Roy, Please give me your name if you have the courage and I will sue you for libel and slander. I have never taken drugs in my life.
I await more WIBBLE or should it be DRIVEL.
You might be a tool, but you're not the sharpest tool in the box are you, Drugs User 4549?
I suggest that you look up the definition of libel and slander and then explain to me how it's applicable in this case (i.e. in relation to an anonymous keyboard warrior).
Then you might also want to have a think about how your snidey implications against named council officials might cause you to be the one facing such charges - should those that you libel/slander have as big a chip on their shoulders as you have. Are you an ex-councillor perchance?
My guess is that these officials wouldn't be moved to press charges, because they have far more to do with their time than you blatantly have.
So, back tp the subject that you diverted, what are you going to do to assist the clean-up operation?
Let me guess - sweet fanny adams (except perhaps writing a letter to the Daily Mail moaning about it). Drugs User 4549, you're nowt but a serial whiner - and a very tedious one at that.
So whats your name oh brave one?
Q2 What is the difference between libel and slander?
Ans) Libel concerns the WRITTEN WORD and material broadcast on television or radio.
So I agree slander does not apply here.
Things may not be as simple re libel/slander as you think:
http://www.out-law.com/page-9330
However, as neither of you is likely to be using your real name it is hard to see how it would be possible for anyone to identify you from your user names.
However, were a profile attached to the name and from which you could be recognised:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article743902.ece
However, if User4549 lives in Scotland ......
(you can work it out if you need to)
On the other hand, people on the forum should be careful. I use my own name so ....blah blah.
Equally, I know Ann so if a defamatory post were written about her .....
Alternatively, we could all try to avoid abuse and conduct debate.
Don
I am away from home and have little to do but sit on my thin arse (6 ft 1 in and 11 st)
and make pointless posts and laugh at myself for making them.
My apologies for boring you (all?)
Don
My name is as per my profile; Rev. Roy W. Anker.
So is your real name User 4549? If so, I pity you for having weird parents when you were christened.
No, I take that back - I pity you anyway.
Let's try again - if your name isn't User 4549, then how in the name of sweet baby jesus have I libeled you?
You're not very good at this game are you Drugs User 4549.
Back to the topic in hand. Are you going to do anything to assist the clean-up operation??
Roy, I live in Dawlish and I sign on to this forum with my email and password, the webmaster must have put me down as user 4549.
Oh well in that case, I'm sure that I'm going to be sent down for a long stretch at her majesties pleasure.
Anyone got any spare KY Jelly they can lend me...?
Back to the topic in hand, Drugs User 4549, what are you going to do to assist with the clean-up?
Right-oh, I'll see you down there tomorrow lunch-time. 5 past 1 alright for you?
Looking forward to meeting you, Druggie, and it will be an absolute pleasure if you were to prove me wrong in my thought that you're nowt but a idling, whining, keyboard warrior.
5 past 1 at the bird enclosure. See you there.
I take my lunch break from 1 til 2. It's a 5 minute walk from the office = 5 past 1.
Looking forward to meeting you and to seeing what we can do to help resolve this serious issue.
You are absolutely full of shit mate. Now jog on you loser, cos I'm not wasting any more of my time on lying, idling keyboard warriors like you...
For those that are genuinely interested, a Task Force has been created, with the aim of raising both funds and manpower in order to resolve the reported problem with the enclosure.
If anyone from Dawlish is interested in joining this Task Force or is able to assist in any other way, then please email dawlishman@live.co.uk for further information
Full details will be published in the local press in due course.
Timewasters such as Drugs User 4549 need not bother.
You are nothing but a gutless wonder who talks the talk but cant walk the walk, so where were you of mighty mouth as I said I waited for you, but I guess you are just like the bottom of a babies pram all piss and breadcrumbs. I even printed documents for you, to prove what I said about CCTV. Stiil stick behing the keyboard thats what you are best at.
Have just come back to this thread after being away for a few days to find that it has now degenerated into a slanging match which doesn't solve anything. I understood the point of the matter was that the waterfowl pond in the enclosure was draining into the Brook and therefore polluting it and the effluent is going out to sea where it is washing back on to the beaches and threatening the 'blue flag' status. This means that the whole enclosure needs an upgrade and it's not just a question of a few volunteers going down to the Brook armed with cleaning equipment; there has to be a permanent solution; which of course costs money.
Cassandra,
Agreed.
However, as the swans do not live in the enclosure, I do not see why they should be at risk as the headlines suggest.
Equally, it would be very disappointing to lose the enclosure or any of the waterfowl which are such an asset both to residents and visitors.
Don
As Teignbridge are the owners of the Aviary surely its up to them to provide any finance should that be necessary, Dawlish Town Council are only the lease holders, and they have tried to get Teignbridge to step up and take responsibility.
Today I spoke to a Dawlish Councillor and asked why Teignbridge the lessors of the property that the Aviary stands on would not take responsibility for the problem if there is one, I was told they say the Black Swans belong to Dawlish and as such it was their problem.
So if dawlish owns the swans and we have to resolve the problem so be it. But does this make the Queen responsible for the mess her seagulls make as they are her property so i believe.
Just look at all the seagull c**P in Dawlish & who owns the pigeons. Anyway do fish c**p in the brook? I REST MY CASE!!!!
My view for what its worth, Teignbridge Health and Safety condemned the aviary last year, and as the landlords if there is a problem of pollution from the aviary surely they must put it right.
Don't be a silly billy and ask such a silly question. It is the past mayor - you know the one with those silly hats. Now she is on an ego trip trying to get people on her side.
Typical tory!!!!!! Talk about the plight of animals and children and they think they are on a winner - but some of us know different.
For heaven's sake, haven't the council got better things to do?
Don't they realise that the water in the brook, as with most waterways, runs off the surrounding hills with every opportunity to pick up pollutants from farmland etc on the way? It then flows into the sea to be mixed with dilute essence of sewage, rotting fish and boat effluence, leaked fuel and other nasties. Only a fool would expect it to be pristine. Thousands of people play and paddle in the sea here - how many of them have succumbed to swan-related illnesses?
The swans are such an asset to the town - they provide the town's identity, they entertain us and attract visitors. Surely a bit of bird-mess is a small price to pay?
If there is any pollution its probbaly caused by the pigeons who roost and poop under the viaduct
Its the cheaper option to get rid of the black swans than to deal with the pigeons.
Would be a real shame if Dawlish lost the black swans.
I think some of you are barking up the wrong tree.
The polution that is of concern, is that which is pouring out of the aviary in the Brunswick and also from the decaying food that is so copiously put into the brook by the duck warden (little knowledge of biochemistry). There are far to many ducks held in the aviary - and for what purpose?
What ducks are being bred in the aviary and for what purpose - who is running a business from the council owned property - and what happens to the income from the sale of the eggs for hatching off site, and the ducks that are hatched on site. Is there a seperate account?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4239566/Black-swans-of-Dawlish-under-threat-over-pollution-row.html
I wonder if all this fuss would be made if it were children, thank your lucky stars you dont have to live where there is real pollution you sad lot.