And yet I see you and oscietra constantly in denial. Neither of you have even bothered to read the reports outlining what can be done, how limited it is and what the problems are, but you are convinced that 'something can be done'. Why can't those promoting it be of a similar mindset to you and oscietra? There are many people who have the mindset that you two have - that it's 'just' wildlife and of course something can be done, and just assume that anyone who says is scaremongering and doesn't get 'it' - that if you throw enough money at something it goes away.

Wildlife doesn't. It's annoyingly intractable like that. I'd love it if we could, would make lots of things a lot easier, but it doesn't.

But if you are a developer, then you might chose to assume something can be done, because of the rewards if you can get the scheme through. What's not adding up is people's greed, their ability to ignore unpalatable facts, and their assumption that problems can always be made to go away, combined with their willingness to accept an expert view. It's something I have to say I've seen over and over and over when it comes to developments near airports which cause bird flight safety risks. And sometimes, they'd go all the way to Inquiry, so determined would they be that birds would not get in the way of their developments - and they always lost. Then the next eager developer would come along, and refuse to learn from case law in this area and try all over again and lose again. The MOD/CAA had a 100% record at objecting to developments which created a birdstrike risk, going to public inquiry and having their objection upheld and the development not allowed. Despite the fact that surely something could be done? The best thing you can do is not create the hazard in the first place...

Just as in the Thames. How many proposals have now been shot down by concerns about flight safety? Won't stop others trying...