MCS finally admit that human population control is needed to stem the tide of the declining marine environment; and then try to profit from it!

The MCS have finally accepted that the unsustainable human population is responsible for the decline of the marine environment (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jeanluc-solandt-the-oceans-may-have-already-passed-breaking-point-2300359.html)

Then after apparently slagging me off

MCS play 'Swap Shop' with nature reserves - Deal or No Deal?

Seeing as the so called MCS were name dropping Chris Packham last week as someone who supports 'no take zones'. I d recommend everyone goes to the following link "Chris Packham asks –‘What’s the point of nature reserves?’". He says "they are useless for conservation as they are isolated areas, just useful for geeks like himself to look at on a Sunday". A no take zone is the equivalent to nature reserves on land!!!! Can anyone else on this Judasidal site (MCS on Facebook) put 2 and 2 together and come up with the right answer. If you want to promote Sir David Attenborough's conclusion to his lifes work, visit the Optimum Population Trust website please.    
                                       
  “All environmental problems become harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”

David Attenborough

MCS caught with pants down and with a mouthful of sweets - but deny both!

DEBATE ON FACEBOOK PROVES THE MCS ARE TWO FACED AS THEY BACKTRACK ON CONDEMNING SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH AND THEIR CLAIMS OF ONLY 1 MILLION FISH BEING DISCARDED IN THE NORTH SEA EVERY YEAR - WHEN THE ACTUAL FIGURE IS OVER 350 MILLION

MCS Said:

Hi Phil Brindley - Just to be clear with regard to your comments on the Fish Fight discards figures: MCS did not supply any information in relation to this to Fish Fight - our work was more species related. You will need to take this issue up with Fish Fight directly as we cannot retract something that was not ours in the first place. You keep referring to Sir David Attenborough and our lack of support towards him and his work. MCS as an organization has nothing other than the highest regard for the work of Sir David and we’re not entirely sure where your evidence has come from, perhaps you could enlighten us?


My Reply:
Here WAS one of your posts on the subject fro last year; NOW TAKEN OFF!! http://www.marine-conservation.org.uk/News.html 

The Independent where the MCS get their info from still has theirs up though - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/north-sea-fisheries-madness-2137103.html

My Reply continued:

"Who would want to be man of the people when there are people like you?" Your last comment is something a three year old child would say

Marine Conservation Society are a Con!

The damming of rivers globally results in silt not flowing in to the oceans to protect against coastal erosion. These areas / substrate  are primary nursing grounds for many marine species, which also depend on detritus coming from fully functioning riverine systems to nourish their young.

 This is the start of the imbalance in the marine ecosystem, the second imbalance is the out of control human population, which obviously requires more and more food each day - making over fishing impossible to control.

 The third imbalance is the warming of the seas through various well documented issues.

 The final imbalance is created by the so called Marine Conservation Society who have no understanding of marine ecosystems, what's in them or taken out; yet they line their own pockets by arranging litter picking, promoting no take zones and putting cameras on boats. In other words - by promoting things people can see and do to make the oceans and seas look nice they take money and emphasis away from organisations who know what they are talking about (ie International Rivers, Dams and Alternatives). Thing is most marine life is below the water line but don't tell the so called MCS that - sooner these disgraces are bankrupt the better, unless you too disagree with Sir David Attenborough about conservation!

reply by Mr P Beenham

• The decline in turtle populations cant be helping to control the jellyfish populations?! Increasing sea temperture rises suit jellyfish populations very well. Phil Brindley you had made some very interesting comments and some very worthwhile points but I think you have a very synical view on how the MCS acts and how they fund there promotions. Surely any awareness about how we treat our oceans and any campaigning that is done is worthwhile to re address the balance! Remember the MCS was instrumental in helping lobbying the government for marine protected areas!
  
  
  Reply by the so called MCS
  
  
  
  
  

  Increasing sea temperatures do suit some species of jellyfish, but probably not all. I think fluctuations in jellyfish populations are far more likely to significantly affect turtle populations than the other way around. Indeed, there have been a couple of recent papers that suggest that consistent and possibly increasing seasonal jellyfish abundance in the North Atlantic may be one of the key drivers behind the significant recovery of several monitored leatherback nesting populations in the region, including Florida, North Caribbean, South Caribbean and the Guianas. Significant jellyfish mortality most likely occurs at the planktonic level, where the removal of a vast biomass of planktivorous fish species through industrial fishing reduces the predation pressure at the jellyfish larval stage. This could lead to increased jellyfish survivorship to adulthood and increased reproduction, thus tipping the ecological balance from fish dominated to jellyfish dominated. Incidentally, MCS has the greatest respect for Sir David Attenborough and we have advised his production teams on a number of occasions over the years and worked with him and his team on the BBC series Saving Planet Earth.

  
  
  
  
  

  my rely to Mr P Beenham

  
  
  
  
  

   ‎ The MCS are Judases, who leech marketable ideas from Sir David (besides others) and then stab him in the back because of his connection to the Optimum Population Trust. Without controlling human populations, like states such as Kerala have, all conservation methods are futile. Just ask them what they think of the O.P.T. (they've had 2 weeks to comment so their answer should be really pollished?). At the end of the day it's not going to get them or anyone public funds by promoting real sustainability. How an organisation such as the MCS can get virtually all their facts and figures from daily newspapers (mainly the Daily Mail and Independent), shows how uneducated and profit margin driven they are (as you may be aware there are official sources to gain information from ie FAO, CEFAS, International Rivers and Dams & Alternatives). In the case of Hugh's Fish Fight (if you've not been following my 'correspondence' with the so called MCS) in what other occupation/field would you not be sacked for letting them film the show with the knowledge that 1 million fish are discarded in the North Sea annually - when the actual figure is close to 350 million (just because the Independent told them so). They didn't even have the balls to thank me for pointing out their gargantuan mistake before the series was aired (BAFTA winning)- wish i'd left it now, then everyone would have seen how useless they really are!

  
  
  

  
  

Marine Conservation Society Condemn Sir David Attenborough

TRANSCRIPT OF DEBATE BETWEEN MCS AND MYSELF ON FACEBOOK






Phil Brindley -  No need for ANYONE to put their fingers down their throats to be sick with you con artists coming out with statments such as "Don't miss the chance to help save our seas" you really should write the book on how you get away with it - just think of the money and the book reviewers that will be talking about you on the teleeeeeee!!!!!

Bee Pollen Tablets sold as amphetamine substitute 'legal highs'

"Rape of 1 female is 'worse' than the rape of 35 males" claim Sky News

Sky News appear to have stopped sensationalising sex crimes following my request to them for an apology to the estimated 3500 male victims of William Goad, after they claimed a man who may have raped over 100 women was Britain’s most prolific sex offender.

All through the day on the 26th of October 2010 they tried to grip viewers to the story, which, appalling as it was, unfortunately isn’t the truth. They went even further on their news website, by claiming that detectives on the case also believed he was potentially Britain’s most prolific serial sex offender.

Perhaps, they meant that the man in question, John Worboys, was Britain’s most prolific sex offender against women.