Amidst all the talk of Trump and Brexit other events and parliamentary proceedings have slipped through in the back ground almost unnoticed. Early this week 90 minutes of debating time was set aside for a motion bought by Oliver Colvile MP (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con) regarding aggressive seagulls.
Now you would expect coming from a costal region, seagulls would be an accepted aspect of life. Not for Mr Colvile (who is not alone). The motion came about after an incident affecting a friend of Mr Colvile’s, who lost his fish and chip lunch to an opportunist gull while on the campaign trail last year. Mr Colvile raised his concern that increasingly aggressive seagulls could put off more tourists from coming across the world and visiting the area. He went on to explain that they are not content to just take to the skies over the city; but that they were now on there internet, informing the house that there is even a Twitter account called @PlymSeagull.
It has been claimed that tourists are to blame, by encouraging the gulls though feeding and or business for poor refuse management. The argument is that one of the most important elements is access to food? If seagulls are denied access to that, they will often go elsewhere. While for some the sudden swooping of a bold seagull could be alarming perhaps this is all being viewed wrong; is it not us that overtime have infiltrated the habitat of the seagulls and taken away their natural food source by stripping the oceans of fish through overfishing.
In the times we are currently living in I think 90 minutes of parliamentary debate could be better spent.