George

And before you ask, no, I'm not a vegan (yet). But I am a compassionate person.

I've read that farmers forcibly remove the calves from their mothers straight after they're born, so the milk the mother produces only goes to the farmer to make a profit from. Obviously this causes intense distress as any biologist will tell you that the maternal bond in mammals is incredibly strong, and breaking it will cause physical and psychological trauma.

I'm aware it's possible not to take all the milk, therefore still leaving enough for the calf. But th

Do the calves still get to suckle while the cow is milked? And do they get to stay with their mothers? Or are they reared separately?

I know it's difficult to get an unbiased answer- vegans will surely agree it's cruel, while dairy farmers insist it isn't- so I would like to get as broad a range of opinions as possible.

Thank you!

Why do people see the greens as a single issue party when environmental issues are some of the most important facing our country and actually encompass a lot more than just a tree-hugging philosophy, a green economy would create jobs! Going green isn't a single issue- it would actually benefit everyone. Studies show improved access to green spaces improves health.

Whereas UKIP could be accused of being single issue with regards to the EU and immigration, I totally understand not wanting to vote for the main parties but I'm just intrigued as to why UKIP count as a protest vote and the greens don't, considering Caroline Lucas' action to stop fracking (I would argue that demonstrates a lot of passion as it risked her career). I think the Greens are under-rated as a protest vote.

I'm not saying UKIP are single issue but I don't support their other policies which I'm not sure a lot of their fans are aware of- repealing the hunting ban, for instance, and opposing wind farms as well as not believing in man-made climate change.

So yeah I'm not slagging off UKIP, I don't agree with them but what makes them so much better than the Greens as a protest party? Just wondering.

Thanks!

More oxygen? Warmer climate?

I know not all dinosaurs were huge, I'm talking about stuff like diplodocus, spinosaurus, brachiosaurus, argentinosaurus.

Theoreticlaly that amount of body mass can be fatal to large animals on land, say whales, because it puts pressure on their organs so they suffocate due to the effects of gravity.

So how did such huge dinosaurs evolve?

Thanks!!

It's ok to oppose excess immigration and the EU, that's fine. Their debates can be ok. But don't be fooled as they harbour some nasty people.

But some of their comments are horrendous.

First, they don't want gay couples to be allowed to marry (which is a litte bizarre- why should it affect them at all).

Then they don't believe in climate change when 97% of scientists do. JUst look at seabird declines in the north sea because of changing sea temperatures affecting the distribution of the fish they feed on, and all the mediterranean species that have established theselves here (egrets, false widow, etc)- its bloody obvious we've caused climate change or it wouldn't happen so fast. Then look at climate graphs over the past 100 years, since the industrial revolution global temperatures/emissions have rocketed, as has the population. Coincidence? Not likely.

Secondly they have idiot councillors saying stuff like floods were caused by the proposal to legalize gay marriage, that's like saying I fell over a chair because God made me do it, or unicorns exist because I saw one on tv. It makes no sense, has no proof, nothing.

Then you have Andre Lempitt saying things like Lenny Henry should be deported, Ed MIliband isn't British enough, and all Nigerians are bad. No evidence there, nothing, and Andre is hardly a British name is it.

Why do these loonies get so much publicity?

They throw a drink over you?

I'm not saying like beat them up, just like lash out in anger. As I'm fairly sure a guy would do that to another guy if he did that. I don't condone violence, but if a woman does something that provocative, and you're making a split second decision is it frowned upon?

This woman was found to have neglected a foal so badly it had to be put down, and she received a 3 year ban on keeping horses, which is quite frankly pathetic. She should have had a life ban on keeping any animal.

People have been found badger baiting and get a similarly light treatment. Yet someone in the riots who stole a bottle of water received a jail sentence, and in theory, you can get 5 years in jail or more for drug possession, There's no proportionality in sentencing.

Why doesn't the law take animal abuse seriously? Especially in cases where they could easily have stopped it? This kind of cruel, barbaric treatment is not accidental or a one off- it is a cold, calculating crime of the most vile nature. People who do this to animals will do it to humans.

How come our government is so influenced by the media, in particular the Daily Mail? Is it because they are trying to get votes, or what?

Thanks!

I've heard rumours that he might stand. Personally I can't stand him. But I'm interested to know what others think and why they think that?

So say, if the government had indicated it wanted to proceed with a badger cull, are their MPs allowed to vote against it, or is it party policy to always vote one way or another?

I'm surprised to be honest because it is a pressing human rights issue in the states, and if anyone has the power to challenge it then it's him.

Do they treat it the same way as they would treat small-scale possession? This is in the UK.

Bearing in mind I'm not asking about dealing, just plants for personal use.

Thanks.

I'm planning to get dreadlocks because I have the right hair for it- it's nice and thick and long. Just as an experiment, not necessarily a long term thing.

Do people with dreads get "randomly" searched more? Does anyone have first hand experience of this? And if so why? Are they subject to any other prejudices?

Thanks.

Do they put palm oil in their biscuits? And if so is it from sustainable sources?

I emailed my MP on the same issue (drug laws) several times, each time citing carefully considered scientific evidence.

He disagrees with me despite all my evidence put forward, which I respect, however, it is his resorting to lying that bothers me.

He said in his most recent letter that "the government's message on drugs is clear" which is obviously false. If that were true they would be categorized according to the harm they do, but they aren't. He goes on to babble about how drug use is falling with no stats to support this.

I realize this is just an example and that some politicians do tell the truth. However they seem to be in a minority.

Just because a politician disagrees with something why do they have to resort to lying? What's in it for them? If they were in another position any view discrediting the evidence would be deemed irresponsible e.g you wouldn't trust a fisherman who ignores all the facts about declines in fish stocks. They need to at least try and be honest.

Thanks

All the studies show that weed is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

Advocates of weed prohibition claim that they are doing it to protect the public from the health risks, but if that is the case, why aren't alcohol and tobacco also banned? And why aren't dangerous sports like bungee jumping banned if that is the logic?

How is it morally justifiable to punish people for using a less harmful drug whilst ignoring and even advertising other drugs that are considerably more harmful?

Why does the establishment continually refuse to answer the question of why we tolerate the use of alcohol and tobacco in moderation but not cannabis? It is perfectly possible to be a responsible cannabis user, just like it is possible to be a responsible drinker.

I personally can't stand the guy, who strikes me as an arrogant, scaremongering idiot.

He claims to know more than other people in TV debates even when it clearly is not the case- he argues in his recent book that addiction doesn't exist despite pharmacological and neurological evidence to the contrary.

He takes typical ill informed arguments and turns them into slightly better arguments to dress them up as well-informed, but he cannot resist in debates labelling opposing views "absurd", "idiotic", "stupid" and constantly claims his are more intelligent, as well as interrupting whenever someone disputes his claims. He is one of the most dislikable people out there, in my view. However I still respect his right to express his views, just think he does it in a condescending and arrogant manner.

So why do people like him? Just because he appears somewhat "tough"?

People are getting my texts but they can't call me (goes straight to voicemail) and I'm not getting any of theirs.

I haven't altered anything or pressed anything so what could be the issue?

Thanks.