mercuryg

The myth that big cats couldn't survive in this country was debunked a long time ago. There's plenty to eat and cats are, by their nature, elusive. As for the authorities, I think the best option is to leave well alone - a cat is unlikely to attack a human and I know of no certain reports of big cats attacking; most likely it will scarper long before you get close enough to it. The whole thing reminds me of the famous colony of wallabies that lived wild in the pennines in Derbyshire, close to where I was brought up. You could walk into the hills - not far from a small town - and watch them hopping around like they were native. I'm told the last one died recently as they were not breeding.

In natural terms, that's true, but in fact there are known to be Lynx living in the wild in england. A number escaped from private collections in the 1950's or 1960's and they were never recovered. How long they lived for, whether they bred, and if so where they are now is an unknown. A lynx is, also, somewhat bigger than a scottish wildcat which is the size of one and a half average domestic tabby's; had someone seen a wildcat i think they would have thought it a very big tabby, and not really thought much more about it.

It would be great if it was, but when was the last time a Scottish Wild Cat was seen in England? You're probably more likely to see a lynx!

I was deadly serious Merlin - it was there, and it was certainly not a domestic cat. The dog would have chased one, but he hung back from this one. I think you're right in that they are adept at keeping themselves to themselves.

I hate to be the one to post a serious answer to this, it's just not me! A number of years ago was walking the dog down the path that rund by The Burn, next to teh Hazlemere estate. Dog, medium sized Border Collie, was fifty yards in front and stopped dead looking ahead. Around the corner, another fifty or more yards away, was a bloody big cat - about the size of the dog - that was black or dark brown in colour. It watched us for a moment then sloped off into the undergrowth; we went looking but couldn't find it, although the dog was keen. I have cats, it wasn't a domestic tabby.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! DON'T OPEN WETHERSPOONS, PLEASE, NOT THE RETURN OF DARN! CAN BEDDERS COPE?

While I agree entirely with the Red Lion opening being a good thing (i'm not fussed about Wetherspoons to be honest but if they are the ones so be it) I don't see why it will lead to a sudden increase in people spending weekend evenings out in Bedlington again. Very few people are going to come here especially to visit Wetherspoons (just as very few do to visit Tesco's) and the main clientele is clearly going to consist of those of us who do go out for a pint going there for a taste of something new. People stay in on Fridays and Saturdays because they have stocked up on cheap beer at home; Wetherspoons isn't going to change that, and nor is its presence going to give everyone a sudden payrise. Sorry to appear to be putting a downer on it - I'm looking forward to it opening - but in terms of 'reviving the town' I really think a lot more is needed, and doubt that Bedlington will ever return to the heady heights we remember from years gone by. People simply cannot afford it - even at Wetherspoons prices.

Far from it; they buy end of line stock at high volume - it's how they keep their prices low. It's not a secret and has been part of their business plan for years. Hope it opens sooner than later.

Here's one for the history buffs that I am researching for a friend; the subject is one John Topham, who at some point in his life - although not sure exactly when - resided in Bedlington. Topham, who was awarded the Distiguished Flying Cross, had a story to tell, one tinged with tragedy and heroism. Shot down over occupied France - was a Lancaster captain and his plane was hit by 'friendly fire', a bomb from an aircraft above him - he suffered injuries to his leg and was soon under the care of Resistance operatives. during his time hiding he even spent 36 hours buried in a grave, in order to convince attending SS officer he was, in fact, dead. They believed th story, but one became suspicious, and apparently returned some time later. Topham shot the German, who was sunsequently buried in said grave. To cut a long story short, he returned to the Police Force - in newcastle, apparently - after the war and, tragically, met his death in his late 50's when hit by a lorry while crossing Stanhope Street. Anyone who can provide me with further details, knowledge or information about this man with such an interestign life please send me a message, it's research being carried out in connection with the Help for Heroes appeal, more of which I will divulge if required but would rather keep under wraps for now. Thanks.

No quite; Wetherspoons have agreements in place to buy their stock very late in its life, cutting down on the lead time they have in which to sell it hence the cut prices. In doing this they get a very good, guaranteed cut price deal as it takes what would rapidly become waste off the brewery's hands. The sheer volume they buy in means that they can easily undercut the rival brewery chains, who continue to treat their pubs as assets rather than businesses. The problem that most landlords have these days is that they are tied to expensive brewery deals for their draught product; Wetherspoons, being able to offer a much better deal, offer their landlords a much brighter prospect. It's not just competition, it's extreme competition. Not that I don't welcome it, but unless it does generate extra trade (which I doubt) and pass some of that onto the remaining bars it will be of limited benefit to the town.

I'll wager anyone a bet that Tesco has no intention of expanding. There's not enough business.

Good to see some positive comments about local pubs, as these are places that should be supported by us all. The Tavern is still owned by Punch Taverns, as it has been for many years, and it is they who have put some effort into upgrading the facilities, although it is mainly cosmetic. The licensee is the same lady who has the Monkey, believe it or not. Punch have always intended for the Tavern to become very much food orientated; the last tenants resisted this on the grounds that there was not enough sustainable custom. Anyone with any sense can see they were right - there isn't enough sustainable custom. Punch's area manager has insisted for years that the plavce was not capitalising enough on the 'trade from Tesco's' without noticing that the majority of people who shop at Tesco's park their cars out the back, fill the trolley, load the car and go home. If Punch continues with its insistence that the Tavern become a full on food bar it will not last long. Having said that, I went in for Sunday dinner last week and it was very good indeed; quite how long they can afford to keep it on is another matter.

I did read it - it's a story I've been following for some time and it's a great achievement; what I asked was what relevance it has to heating and powering homes in the UK, and the answer - if you care to think about it - is very little. To gain the power needed to store in the bloody great batteries that thing carries so it ca fly at night it needs to fly in the day; it has a major advantage in that it is not a house, it's an aeroplane. Unless you can elevate your necessarily south facing roof to above the cloud base when the sun isn't shining you're stuffed; the aeroplane isn't. It's logical when you think about it.

And the relevance to heating and powering homes in the UK is what, exactly?

Now that I like!

BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU! Note to landlords - when you see Mr Darn, add 30p to the price of a pint! Beer is not cheap these days is it. I actually listened to a geezer the other day complaining he paid 3p more in one pub than in another. Disgusting, of course. How much is a pint in wetherspoons these days?

How many times have we heard this one now????

Good point.....

Er, I didn't say that. If you bother to read the section on electric cars you'll see I've made my opinion quite clear that cars, as personal transport as we know them, have a limited life for the very reasons you espouse. Neither did I say 'scrap any green technology' but rather accept that over-investment in wind and solar power - which are proven to be inefficient and not the answer - is not the best use of resources. I did, however, state that nuclear power is the way forward, and also accept that disposing of the waste is a problem. You did, too, look: "we could build green power stations such as wind turbines, wave machine thingies or nuclear." That's in the electric car thread, and is your answer to my question about the lack of available power. The thing is, Monsta, it's all very well reading the blurb about wind turbines and solar power, and saying 'hey, this looks good, lets give companies a 25 year guarantee of excessive funding so that we look like we're doing our bit for the planet' but it is impossible to get away from one simple fact: they don't work well enough to provide our future required power. What, I ask in all seriousness, is wrong with being honest about that? I just read that yesterday, when loads of people switched on their TV's to watch the match, there was a power surge in at least one town that led to a blackout. That's WITH on demand, station provided electricity; how on earth do you propose to overcome that when we've shut down the power stations and attempt to meet our ludicrously over the top commitment to renewable energy sources? I take this seriously because it is serious; there is no quick fix.

Great question. What do we currently do with it? We bury it, and we will continue to do so until something better comes around. The problem you highlight is one that is eternal; we have the ability to build efficient nuclear power stations that provide us with plentiful power, yet waste disposal is clearly an issue; we have the ability to build efficient coal powered power stations that provide us with plentiful power, yet the carbon problem remains and the fossil fuel resources are being depleted; we have the ability to fill the country with wind turbines and solar panels, yet these are not efficient and don't provide anywhere near the power we require. So what do we do? In the long term, of course, we investigate alternative power sources - we always have, and always will - but in the short term we need power. Our current nuclear stations are going off line systematically, as are the older fossil fuel stations, and we need replacements - now. It's either the problematic storage of nuclear waste, or the continued carbon emissions of fossil fuels; sadly, wind and solar power don't provide the answer. Tides? Geothermal energy? Who knows, but for know, today, we don't have an option.

All interesting stuff, but the actual fact is that wind and solar power are not efficient, and are not going to halve our carbon emissions. It isn't going to happen - plain and simple. Of course the industry is creating jobs- governments are subsidising these things - but even Germany, the leader in such technology, is having to build more coal fired power stations to back up its wind supply. What's the point in subsidising wind and solar if that's what is needed (and it is, both there and here.) My aim is not to dismiss alternative power sources but to wish, seemingly endlessly, that the governments of the world would accept that what they are aiming to achieve - this massive and seemingly imperative reduction in carbon emissions by huge amounts - is simply not acheivable and driven by unproven theories that are largely based on highly disputed cod science. To cover this country in wind turbines is an expensive mistake that will not solve the impending problem of a power deficit, and the money spent subsidising it to keep the green lobby happy could be put to better use. I see heat pumps mentioned; great idea, but very, very expensive and high maintenance. We need nuclear reactors.

That is part o the problem in putting forward a 'negative' view. I can't disagree at all that there is great justification in looking at our dependence on fossil fuels, but the problem lies in the way the last twenty years of government have been swayed by the anti nuclear and pro 'green' brigade. Don't get me wrong, i'm not against the idea of clean fuels and renewable energy, my problem lies in excessive investment in unproven and inefficient power sources that are never going to provide the answer to the problem. I talk mainly of wind and solar power. Solar power is a non starter in the UK; despite Monsta's assertions - which are those of many who have been misled by the advertising and promotion of those with massive government grants - solar panels, even the most efficient ones, do not operate efficiently in anything other than the brightest of clear sunlight. This should be clear to anyone who reads that they need to be fitted south facing. furthermore, they don't work at night, and there is no facility for storing surplus energy and using it later without losing a great deal of it in the process. The quoted installer even admits that there is a possibility of 40-60% savings on electricity bills - there is no guarantee, and when you consider that teh winter months and many more will have to be subsidised by other sources of power it becomes obvious that something is not quite right here. The simple test is to look around you - solar power has been with us for a hundred years, yet it is hardly used. There is s reason for that. Look around in California and you'll see a different aspect. Wind power is my biggest bugbear, for I firmly believe that it is a complete and utter waste of money in terms of the national grid. There is clear research data that states a wind turbine will only ever operate at 30% or less of its capacity; given that all the calculations of power provision are taken at full capacity this means we are financing an immediate and accepted shortfall. this is a ridiculous situation, and it has to stop. Recent estimates state that we need a further 2,000 wind turbines to reach the proposed output levels; that means, in truth, we need more than ten thousand, and if we are to achieve anywhere near the levels needed given that different parts of the country see different levels of wind that figure is most likely - and this isn't my estimation, it's accepted scientific fact as provided by in depth research - to increase further. we need, therefore, a further 17,000 or so wind turbines in order to reach the current output levels, and that is not to produce all of our energy, but less than 40%. The money spent on subsidising wind power - and it is vast - would be far better spent addressing the problem in hand - our impending lack of power with the closure of the nuclear stations and the coal fired. Germany, by the way, has been the biggest investor in wind and solar power over the last twenty years, and has just committed to building a series of new coal powered stations to supplement the lack of power being provided by its failed 'green' infrastructure. We cannot rely on nature to power our industry and our homes, because nature does not respond to our demands. It's that simple. we need more power stations, and we need them now.

That's no way to continue a discussion, Monsta; I want to hear your side of the 'research' now. I read as far as this in that suppliers blurb to realise it's a con that's going to cost each and every one of us a lot of money. Here - it reads: "It is anticipated that a 3.3kw system could save in the region of 40%-60% of electricity that an average 3 bedroom semi detached property uses. " Anticipated? Don't they know? 'Could'? What about 'will'? 40 - 60%? What about the rest? Come on, I want to hear why I should be in support of something that neither promises nor guarantees anythin, and claims to be free but actually isn't!

yes! They do, but not very well, as you will - of course - know if you have 'researched' solar panels, i'm sure. Even the very best in solar panels that are available now are nowhere near as efficient on days when there is no sun as opposed to those where there is; this isn't hidden by the industry at all, it's openly admitted. As for 'wow, free electricity' you are kidding, right? people - like me - who laugh at the current trend for renewable energy sources are often met with a 'how dare you' response, as if it's sort of a law, as if it's a crime to dare to point out that in fact these so called saviours of our impending power generation problem are not the answer. Solar, wind, wave - it's all flawed, and most of it to great degrees. As with our discussion about the electric car you're reading the positive and failing to take into account the negative - research, as you implore me to undertake, involves balancing both sides of the scales and seeing which weights down the heaviest. It's no good looking at limited time government initiatives that promise free electricity and assuming that because they do that source of power must be the way forward; you have to ask questions, and there are many. Let's start with the same one we started with when we talked about electric cars: if solar power is so good, why isn't it more widely used? After all, it's been around for decades (centuries even) and is one of the most obvious forms of alternative power? Builders now incorporate solar panels in many new houses, but not with the intention of replacing the national grid - why is that? because they are not very efficient. On a bright sunny day you'll be able to power your lights and most of your home by it, but on a cloudy day you may be able to generate only a small percentage of its available capacity. And therein lies the problem that is present with solar, wind and wave power - it's not 'on demand'. I don't want to be patronising, but if you've researched solar power - and alternative sources - this won't be news to you; we don't have ways of storing large quantities of electricity, hence we can't rely on solar power when it's not able to be generarted in the capacity required. Power stations churn out electricity to exceed demand all the time - they have to, or we wouldn't be able to operate - it doesn't come from a big storage plant, it isn't generated over night and used the next day, week, year - it's made as we use it. We can envisage a brilliant 'green' future as much as we like, we can talk about building the required three or five thousand new wind turbines needed to meet the quota, and we can all install solar panels, but we still have to accept that they are not 'on demand' sources. If you seriously think that there's going to be a future where electricity is free because we all create it ourselves with personal windmills and solar panels then you're not doing your 'research' at all; solar power is expensive, inefficient and unreliable, and as with every single commercial enterprise somebody has to meet the bill. Nobody is making these solar cells for free, they don't maintain themselves, and they don't install themselves; somebody has to pay for it, and whether it's by massive misguided government subsidies or otherwise, that's you, and me. I would rather that money spent on modern nuclear power stations which give on demand power - wouldn't you?