<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for NVCC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nvcc.org.uk/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk</link>
	<description>National Voice of Coastal Communities: giving coastal issues a voice</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 07:14:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on CCAG: &#8220;For Risk Management read Mismanagement&#8221; by doc</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2009/02/ccag-for-risk-management-read-mismanagement/comment-page-1/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 07:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=313#comment-20</guid>
		<description>It is astonishing to see that Government seems willing and able  to spend  billions of taxpayer&#039;s money to bail out the banking sector whose own mismanagement has caused this chaos and financial disaster, yet the same Government has allocated a mere £800 million pounds for the total flood defence budget in Britain this year which, as we all know, is totally inadequate to deal with the situation ! Given that many coastal dwellers are presently at risk of losing their homes (or have already done so), due to failing sea defences caused by lack of investment from Central Government, it is difficult to accept that banks are given bail-out packages paid for by us – the taxpayer - , yet no social justice or bail-out package can be allocated from ‘taxpayer’s money’ when it comes to defending our coast or compensating those affected by Government’s mismanagement of coastal policies. If we, as taxpayers, would have had a say on how our money is spent , it seems pretty certain that most of us would have opted to protect our coastline and heritage rather than feeding our hard earned  money to the loan sharks! Call that democracy?...!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is astonishing to see that Government seems willing and able  to spend  billions of taxpayer&#8217;s money to bail out the banking sector whose own mismanagement has caused this chaos and financial disaster, yet the same Government has allocated a mere £800 million pounds for the total flood defence budget in Britain this year which, as we all know, is totally inadequate to deal with the situation ! Given that many coastal dwellers are presently at risk of losing their homes (or have already done so), due to failing sea defences caused by lack of investment from Central Government, it is difficult to accept that banks are given bail-out packages paid for by us – the taxpayer &#8211; , yet no social justice or bail-out package can be allocated from ‘taxpayer’s money’ when it comes to defending our coast or compensating those affected by Government’s mismanagement of coastal policies. If we, as taxpayers, would have had a say on how our money is spent , it seems pretty certain that most of us would have opted to protect our coastline and heritage rather than feeding our hard earned  money to the loan sharks! Call that democracy?&#8230;!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on BBC: &#8220;Coastal village living on the edge &#8220; by jaydublu</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/09/bbc-coastal-village-living-on-the-edge/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>jaydublu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:36:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=190#comment-16</guid>
		<description>The piece quotes a very appropriate comment by Malcolm Kerby: &quot;We are climate change migrants - we&#039;re the first wave and we get no assistance whatsoever.&quot;

I can understand the position that not everyone can be defended, even if I don&#039;t personally agree with it. My opinion though is that there is a moral duty to assist those directly affected.

Since a financial justification is being used for the decision to abandon sections of coast, there is a strong argument for financial compensation to those affected by the decision.

I fear that Happisburgh is being used as a test-case, and that meeting moral obligations by agreeing to compensate is being resisted as it would be seen as setting a precedent for a process that is likely to be extended around the majority of the country&#039;s coastline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The piece quotes a very appropriate comment by Malcolm Kerby: &#8220;We are climate change migrants &#8211; we&#8217;re the first wave and we get no assistance whatsoever.&#8221;</p>
<p>I can understand the position that not everyone can be defended, even if I don&#8217;t personally agree with it. My opinion though is that there is a moral duty to assist those directly affected.</p>
<p>Since a financial justification is being used for the decision to abandon sections of coast, there is a strong argument for financial compensation to those affected by the decision.</p>
<p>I fear that Happisburgh is being used as a test-case, and that meeting moral obligations by agreeing to compensate is being resisted as it would be seen as setting a precedent for a process that is likely to be extended around the majority of the country&#8217;s coastline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on BBC: &#8220;UK gives Bangladesh climate help&#8221; by doc</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/09/bbc-uk-gives-bangladesh-climate-help/comment-page-1/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=188#comment-15</guid>
		<description>Why can&#039;t charity start at home? Would it not be better to lead by example, i.e. get our Government to provide sufficient funding  to protect our own flood defences first in an attempt to prepare for the impacts of climate change, rather than  abandoning parts of our own coastline and spending  taxpayer&#039;s money abroad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why can&#8217;t charity start at home? Would it not be better to lead by example, i.e. get our Government to provide sufficient funding  to protect our own flood defences first in an attempt to prepare for the impacts of climate change, rather than  abandoning parts of our own coastline and spending  taxpayer&#8217;s money abroad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on West Sussex Gazette: &#8220;Medmerry defence beefed up ahead of high tides&#8221; by doc</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/08/west-sussex-gazette-medmerry-defence-beefed-up/comment-page-1/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:27:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=176#comment-14</guid>
		<description>We only wish that the EA would have the same foresight to do this down here on the Romney Marsh! Recent high tides have taken away most of the shingle which should protect our fragile coastline, but alas we watch the bulldozers sitting idle in the EA compound whilst the tides wash away the precious little shingle which remains . Not only will this leave us extremely vulnerable to the high  Autumn tides forecast for this year but also represents a total waste of taxpayer&#039;s money, given that shingle has to be sourced at £60 per cubic metre- only to watch it being washed away rather than being pushed back up the banks  during low tides by the EA now. !!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We only wish that the EA would have the same foresight to do this down here on the Romney Marsh! Recent high tides have taken away most of the shingle which should protect our fragile coastline, but alas we watch the bulldozers sitting idle in the EA compound whilst the tides wash away the precious little shingle which remains . Not only will this leave us extremely vulnerable to the high  Autumn tides forecast for this year but also represents a total waste of taxpayer&#8217;s money, given that shingle has to be sourced at £60 per cubic metre- only to watch it being washed away rather than being pushed back up the banks  during low tides by the EA now. !!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on EDP: &#8220;Official faces grilling over Broads surrender option&#8221; by doc</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/06/edp-official-faces-grilling-over-broads-surrender-option/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=115#comment-13</guid>
		<description>WAKE UP BRITAIN!!!!!



It is with some dismay that we have decided to write this comment following the publication of recent articles on the NVCC website. Although delighted to read that Norfolk has formed the North-East Norfolk Coastal Parishes Group in response to recent announcements for potential flood proposals on the Broads and its direct implication on the local community, we are  extremely concerned to see history repeating itself!

The wording used by Natural England’s Representatives  and those from the EA during the recent meeting held in Somerton seem nothing short of a ‘carbon copy’ of those comments we heard for so many years down here on the Romney Marsh by these Agencies or unelected Government Quangos when flood defence proposals were discussed. And as much as it is important to establish contact with those in charge of our future ( and let’s face it – they do decide what future, if any, we all have), it is equally important to understand the language (or spin) with which they deliver their proposals or decisions.

“ Taking local communities into account when making decisions” does not materialise – local communities are the last ones to find out what happens!

‘Helping communities to adapt to climate change” is just another phrase to cover up for the fact that Government is unwilling to spend money on coastal defences and sounds good as a ‘get-out’ clause!



“Being very aware of  concerns and worries by local communities which affects their future”…?.....absolutely NOT – otherwise they would have consulted with local communities FIRST in order to get some feedback before drawing up proposals!

“Successful and long-term adaptation to climate change” is yet another phrase for walking away from stretches of coast where the Government feels that financial investment would  not yield sufficient or ample support in return when it comes to the next elections! In other words – sparsely populated areas can easily be sacrificed in order to keep big towns and cities safe!

“Communications should have been handled in a different manner”… only points out that they have been ‘rumbled’ and are now wishing to be seen to be ‘listening’ which of course they won’t! All that is achieved by this is that it gives people hope and that they can tick off their box of having ‘established dialogue’.

We have seen all this before and have for four years fought hard and brave to change their flood defence proposals here on the Romney Marsh ! What has happened here in the past , is happened now in Norfolk and other areas in Britain and will no doubt rear its ugly head in many other parts of the British Isles is scandalous!  No person should be at the mercy of Government proposals which effectively renders their most prized possession, i.e. their home, worthless Without the inclusion  of  SOCIAL JUSTICE there is no sea/flood defence proposal which would meet with the approval of local communities. 

What happens now affects the future of Britain . Government has created a  “Bermuda Triangle” for its own convenience in order to push these SMPs through,i.e.:-

DEFRA who is no longer responsible for the defence policies, but authorises funding of sea defence schemes has pushed the overall authority onto the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY who in turn attributes its final options to the advice received from NATURAL ENGLAND, which as we all know, is an unelected Government Quango working directly under DEFRA and who state categorically that they of course have no powers to enforce such policies! This leads us straight back to DEFRA who are responsible for the funding! In order words - the local communities are directly affected by this Bermuda Triangle and are likely to disappear off the radar if the Government has its way!


Bear this in mind when you negotiate with those who hold the strings for your future and far more importantly, try and unite with other communities all over Britain who are in the same boat ( which is what you all will need if they are successful). Only by uniting and not just putting one area at the forefront, can we as a whole stop the demise of our coastal defences all over Britain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WAKE UP BRITAIN!!!!!</p>
<p>It is with some dismay that we have decided to write this comment following the publication of recent articles on the NVCC website. Although delighted to read that Norfolk has formed the North-East Norfolk Coastal Parishes Group in response to recent announcements for potential flood proposals on the Broads and its direct implication on the local community, we are  extremely concerned to see history repeating itself!</p>
<p>The wording used by Natural England’s Representatives  and those from the EA during the recent meeting held in Somerton seem nothing short of a ‘carbon copy’ of those comments we heard for so many years down here on the Romney Marsh by these Agencies or unelected Government Quangos when flood defence proposals were discussed. And as much as it is important to establish contact with those in charge of our future ( and let’s face it – they do decide what future, if any, we all have), it is equally important to understand the language (or spin) with which they deliver their proposals or decisions.</p>
<p>“ Taking local communities into account when making decisions” does not materialise – local communities are the last ones to find out what happens!</p>
<p>‘Helping communities to adapt to climate change” is just another phrase to cover up for the fact that Government is unwilling to spend money on coastal defences and sounds good as a ‘get-out’ clause!</p>
<p>“Being very aware of  concerns and worries by local communities which affects their future”…?&#8230;..absolutely NOT – otherwise they would have consulted with local communities FIRST in order to get some feedback before drawing up proposals!</p>
<p>“Successful and long-term adaptation to climate change” is yet another phrase for walking away from stretches of coast where the Government feels that financial investment would  not yield sufficient or ample support in return when it comes to the next elections! In other words – sparsely populated areas can easily be sacrificed in order to keep big towns and cities safe!</p>
<p>“Communications should have been handled in a different manner”… only points out that they have been ‘rumbled’ and are now wishing to be seen to be ‘listening’ which of course they won’t! All that is achieved by this is that it gives people hope and that they can tick off their box of having ‘established dialogue’.</p>
<p>We have seen all this before and have for four years fought hard and brave to change their flood defence proposals here on the Romney Marsh ! What has happened here in the past , is happened now in Norfolk and other areas in Britain and will no doubt rear its ugly head in many other parts of the British Isles is scandalous!  No person should be at the mercy of Government proposals which effectively renders their most prized possession, i.e. their home, worthless Without the inclusion  of  SOCIAL JUSTICE there is no sea/flood defence proposal which would meet with the approval of local communities. </p>
<p>What happens now affects the future of Britain . Government has created a  “Bermuda Triangle” for its own convenience in order to push these SMPs through,i.e.:-</p>
<p>DEFRA who is no longer responsible for the defence policies, but authorises funding of sea defence schemes has pushed the overall authority onto the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY who in turn attributes its final options to the advice received from NATURAL ENGLAND, which as we all know, is an unelected Government Quango working directly under DEFRA and who state categorically that they of course have no powers to enforce such policies! This leads us straight back to DEFRA who are responsible for the funding! In order words &#8211; the local communities are directly affected by this Bermuda Triangle and are likely to disappear off the radar if the Government has its way!</p>
<p>Bear this in mind when you negotiate with those who hold the strings for your future and far more importantly, try and unite with other communities all over Britain who are in the same boat ( which is what you all will need if they are successful). Only by uniting and not just putting one area at the forefront, can we as a whole stop the demise of our coastal defences all over Britain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on BBC Politics Show: &#8220;Surrender the coast?&#8221; by doc</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/05/bbc-politics-show-surrender-the-coast/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 05:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=74#comment-12</guid>
		<description>Yet another big thank you to Malcolm Kerby and the CCAG to highlight this issue. Can anyone in Government explain to us coastal dwellers why they consider it unacceptable for Robert Mugabe to land grab and leave people destitute in Zimbabwe, yet the same is happening right on our door step! And why is it that it seems totally acceptable for a Council recently having to spend £60,000 for the relocation of 3 newts and their habitat , yet Government seems to have  no qualms to destroy the habitat of homo sapiens who are unfortunately  not afforded the same level of protection.?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yet another big thank you to Malcolm Kerby and the CCAG to highlight this issue. Can anyone in Government explain to us coastal dwellers why they consider it unacceptable for Robert Mugabe to land grab and leave people destitute in Zimbabwe, yet the same is happening right on our door step! And why is it that it seems totally acceptable for a Council recently having to spend £60,000 for the relocation of 3 newts and their habitat , yet Government seems to have  no qualms to destroy the habitat of homo sapiens who are unfortunately  not afforded the same level of protection.?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Times: &#8220;Mankind’s faltering efforts to protect coastal idylls from raging waves&#8221; by doc</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/05/times-mankind%e2%80%99s-faltering-efforts-to-protect-coastal-idylls-from-raging-waves/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 06:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=64#comment-11</guid>
		<description>It is  absolutely astonishing that an article of this length can be published in a national newspaper describing in great detail, and by some enthusiastic quotes from the EA, the possibility of creating new wetlands, protecting the flora and fauna, etc. etc., yet only mentioning the actual blight of homo sapiens ( i.e. loss of property without compensation) in barely two lines!.When will the national papers address the &#039;real issue&#039; and stand up for the people? Coupled with &quot;Flood&quot;  which was shown on ITV on Sunday and Monday evening , it quite easily could influence City dwellers that there is a  need to establish more space for the &#039;tide to run out &quot; , hence justifying the creation  of such wetlands, as proposed by the EA, who just happen to run a trailer immediately after the film about their flood line! Talk about distorting the truth! It is high time that the &#039;actual &#039; facts are reported and the Government taken to task on this issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is  absolutely astonishing that an article of this length can be published in a national newspaper describing in great detail, and by some enthusiastic quotes from the EA, the possibility of creating new wetlands, protecting the flora and fauna, etc. etc., yet only mentioning the actual blight of homo sapiens ( i.e. loss of property without compensation) in barely two lines!.When will the national papers address the &#8216;real issue&#8217; and stand up for the people? Coupled with &#8220;Flood&#8221;  which was shown on ITV on Sunday and Monday evening , it quite easily could influence City dwellers that there is a  need to establish more space for the &#8216;tide to run out &#8221; , hence justifying the creation  of such wetlands, as proposed by the EA, who just happen to run a trailer immediately after the film about their flood line! Talk about distorting the truth! It is high time that the &#8216;actual &#8216; facts are reported and the Government taken to task on this issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Real Inconvenient Truth About Climate Change by doc</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/04/the-real-inconvenient-truth-about-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=57#comment-10</guid>
		<description>What an excellent article written here by Malcolm Kerby of the CCAG. For all those who continue to say that &#039;they can&#039;t do that to us&#039; or &#039;this won&#039;t happen without being paid compensation&#039; : READ THIS ARTICLE AGAIN!!! This is &#039;fact&#039; - not &#039;fiction&#039; and until Government policy changed when it comes to coastal flood defence schemes which MUST include SOCIAL JUSTICE, we will continue to bear the brunt and could potentially lose everything. This really is no time for complacency.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What an excellent article written here by Malcolm Kerby of the CCAG. For all those who continue to say that &#8216;they can&#8217;t do that to us&#8217; or &#8216;this won&#8217;t happen without being paid compensation&#8217; : READ THIS ARTICLE AGAIN!!! This is &#8216;fact&#8217; &#8211; not &#8216;fiction&#8217; and until Government policy changed when it comes to coastal flood defence schemes which MUST include SOCIAL JUSTICE, we will continue to bear the brunt and could potentially lose everything. This really is no time for complacency.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on CCAG launches NVCC by belvederebabe</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/04/ccag-launches-nvcc/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>belvederebabe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nvcc.org.uk/?p=3#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Great site Malcolm,
Glad to be able to join others, lets fight &amp; win this fight against the governments
total unfairness together.

S Hall</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great site Malcolm,<br />
Glad to be able to join others, lets fight &amp; win this fight against the governments<br />
total unfairness together.</p>
<p>S Hall</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Times: &#8220;Army chief fights for the beaches&#8221; by jaydublu</title>
		<link>http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/04/times-army-chief-fights-for-the-beaches/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>jaydublu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nvcc.org.uk/?p=51#comment-8</guid>
		<description>Also now featured in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/21/eabroads121.xml</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also now featured in the Telegraph: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/21/eabroads121.xml" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/21/eabroads121.xml</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
