We are getting caught up in the climate change / sea level rise bandwagon, which is a mixed blessing. On the one hand we get publicity of our plight; and I do believe that no publicity is bad. Climate change may not directly be responsible for what’s happening at Happisburgh, but for sure it’s indirectly responsible because it’s being used to justify the change in tack.

I can see part of what you’re saying about reporting being alarmist - it is an allegation that has been levelled several times including at the EDP for publishing the ‘leaked’ Natural England report - but if it wasn’t sensationalised a little bit noone would pay any attention.

Happisburgh gets used as an example so often because it is a very visual demonstration of what happens when you stop defending - and starts the debate on how we adapt to change(?), but most people miss that the erosion at Happisburgh is not physically caused by global warming, sea level rise or any other form of climate change that hasn’t been around for centuries if not millennia - Happisburgh is eroding because the defences aren’t being maintained.

Why aren’t they being maintained? Well the reason has changed over the years.

A decade or so, when there was funding available for defences, proposals for schemes had a small number of consistent objections, mostly political from my understanding.

Then, government policies changed and budgets shrank, and along came the ‘cost benefit ratio analysis’ that Happisburgh fails miserably, which was used as a justification to limit spending.

Then, the SMP2 came out for consultation and it became clearer what the bigger picture is - someone it seems wants to let the majority of the coast go - not just Happisburgh, not just North Norfolk, but around the entire coastline by what I can make out.

Climate change / global warming / sea level rise is being touted as justification for the ‘hard decisions’ that have to be made - to be honest I don’t care if that’s valid or not - it clouds the underlying problem here. That is, for whatever reason you change your policy, you have to mitigate the effect of those changes on the people affected. If you’re going to save money not defending, you can compensate the people who are losing their homes and livelihoods. The problem is that will probably cost more than continuing to defend…

As has been proven in Happisburgh before, and Hickling etc. now, even talking about these changes has an immediate effect of blight on areas concerned. Put something in place for when the worst happens and you immediately fix the blight, and we can talk without a gun against our heads.

In this document, Natural England CONFIRMS what some of us knew anyway. They want parts of Norfolk to flood purely for propaganda reasons. To “deliver the right message”.

Already, the BBC’s David Shuckman has presented alarmist reports live from Happisburgh, claiming coastal erosion is proof of climate change. I would say “what a prat”. But I’m sure he’s no prat, so “what a liar” is the only alternative.

This is a scandal on a massive scale.