Discussion
In the same way as the greens have joined the Lib Dems and sytematically campaigned to be elected to local government positions, often removing long serving local councillors of all political colours. The Gr$$npeace scum are now embarking on a campaign to rid the world of Esso. Like Binladen these goons believe in what they are doing but they will not get the official support of the green BBC etc because their protest though legal is attempting to stop a perfectly law abiding company from operating. This is our chance to fight back:
1 By buying esso petrol
2 By complaining to the police when these protests are due to take place and no action is planned to stop it.
3 By going along on foot and mounting a counter demonstration supporting esso and telling the truth about Gr$$npeace which can be found on the ABD website.
4 By subtlely putting the fear of god in the Gr$$npeace supporters by showing up in very large numbers and intimidating the hell out of them.
5 By writing to our MP and compaining that these people are terrorists and asking why they are not arrested?
Anyone interested?
1 By buying esso petrol
2 By complaining to the police when these protests are due to take place and no action is planned to stop it.
3 By going along on foot and mounting a counter demonstration supporting esso and telling the truth about Gr$$npeace which can be found on the ABD website.
4 By subtlely putting the fear of god in the Gr$$npeace supporters by showing up in very large numbers and intimidating the hell out of them.
5 By writing to our MP and compaining that these people are terrorists and asking why they are not arrested?
Anyone interested?
Mmmmm I think a couple of you missed the point. Remember the Terminator and the line " Look Sarah you can't reason with this terminator, you can't negotiate, it absolutely will not stop etc etc" Well these greens are just the same they have decided on Esso and they will get Esso, then when Esso is dead the next one on the phone book is shell, then BP till they are all gone. That is what we are dealing with. If you live in a low drug abuse low unemployment area then the protest was a flop but elswhere it was 4 or 5 pickets per station. Apathy is not a defense.
Don youre being reasonable! You cannot be reasonable with the greens they dont give a toss about the environment, they only want confrontation. The current greenies recruit twats like swampie to do thier dirty work but the real aim is the total destruction of wealth and civilisation. It is no use trying to understand the incomprehensible, the only answer is to be utterly intollerant of all things green, if its green its bad.
quote:
Sorry but this is bullsh*t. Being 'green' i.e. recycling your papers cans bottles, having a compost heap and aspiring to have a solar panel to recharge the battery on your tiv is 'green'. Anti-capitalism (which is what you describe above) is nothing to do with being environmentally friendly.
It does happen to be coincidence that the majority of anti-capitalists will enjoy getting involved in issues such as road protests, but they're not there for the green issues (which you correctly point out).
Most recognise that the threat to our environment warrants a whole host of policies regarding heavy industry, packaging etc etc.
Most real environmentalists couldn't give a toss about your Tiv. The same as Please lets stop this inscessant slagging off of 'environmentalists' as people who want to ban cars. This is simply in my experience not true. you however they might get pi**ed off if Tony tried to build a 6 lane bypass through ther back yard.
Thanks for just agreeing with me. I just illustrated there is a big difference between green and people who try to look after the environment, as you did. So why is it bullshit.
You seem to have missed the point. The greens are bad news because they pervert the common sense attitude to the environment. If you look at the TV for example the 2 main green media groups, the BBC and Carlton relate all environmental problems to cars ie. Show the white cliffs collapsing into the sea followed by footage of a traffic jam. Produce a chunk of documentary on gloabal warming, (hottest 3 mins on a wednesday in November ever recorded matches with daft weather model programmed by schoolboys in Norwich) cut to footage of traffic jam, and so on etc.
In fact whatever happens in terms of the weather is now followed by footage of a traffic jam. If you go to the green BBC website and look at speed cameras on Radio 4 the majority of the feedback is pro camera (Or Anti car) I have 20 emails from irate nonegreens who have not had their feedback posted because this undermines the green BBC objective of creating an entire nation of car haters.
The political thread behind the anti car movement is fundamentally riding on a green platform. I don't have a problem with recycling or compost heaps or environmentally freindly buses. I do have problem with bullshit and that is what the vast majority of green propaganda is. Why else do the media debate the cars impact on the environment by putting 1 scientist up against 3 nutters and not an ABD spokesman in sight?
quote:
Please lets stop this inscessant slagging off of 'environmentalists' as people who want to ban cars. This is simply in my experience not true.
Where the F**K have you been?
quote:
Define terms, gentlemen. If by "green" you mean someone who is concerned about the environment, then no one can really have a problem with them. Indeed, I'd say these people need to be encouraged.
If, however, by "green" you mean a professionally angry perpetual teenager who sells socialist worker and basically has never got over some injustice their parents meeted out twenty years ago and now has a problem with authority figures of any kind, then we should feel no quarms about denouncing them as a load of anti-intellectual mindless tossers. If they break the law, lock them up.
Plenty of worthwhile causes get hijacked and undermined by these pillocks. We shouldn't let them get away with it.
I agree with paragraph 1, para 2 however leaves me a bit puzzled as I remember such characters but many of them have now moved into the house of commons and the media. which means they are now authority figures and I have a big problem with them, it is time to remove this liberal elite from office. As for para 3 well said thats exactly what I am getting at. The problem is how to sypathise with one group when they support the anti car nutters, maybe carpet bombing?
I am always amased when nuclear power is addressed on the basis that it is not environmentally friendly. Clearly it is the only zero emmision power source available. In fact it is almost the proof that greens are in fact technophobic. For example a recent afternoon chanel 5 broadcast had a conservation expert suggesting all kinds of ways to improve recycling, all of which was fine until the final item which was a device to crush paper packaging and produce bricks which could be burned!!! I quote "and if everyone had one we could close a nuclear power station". I dont believe I am paranoid or developing a conspiracy theory. I am simply illustrating that most of the media coverage of green issues is somewhat muddled. I can only conclude therefore that the motivation for this strange aproach is technophobic and manifests itself as anti car, anti nuclear, anti capitalism. I think your assetion that the government is simply interested in relieving the motorist of cash is a bit of an understatement. The motorist is systematically being victimised. Clearly the government is convinced the crime of motoring is more severe than that of child rape or drug dealing. This is manifested in todays judgement on Gary Hart who though clearly guilty of extreem stupidity simply made a grave mistake and no good will come from him serving a prison sentence. The media attention paid to this tragic but rather unimportant event exceeded that given to the tape of Bin laden.
Of course all of this is simply observation, but it is a fact that the government has publicly declared it an objective to make speeding as socially unacceptable as dring and driving. In other words effect a cultural change in the way we behave. In my opinion this is a gross abuse of power by the elected representatives, particularly as like most people convicted of motoring offences Gary Hart completed a 20 min driving test many years ago and no questons were asked of him with regard to driving while tired.
Of course all of this is simply observation, but it is a fact that the government has publicly declared it an objective to make speeding as socially unacceptable as dring and driving. In other words effect a cultural change in the way we behave. In my opinion this is a gross abuse of power by the elected representatives, particularly as like most people convicted of motoring offences Gary Hart completed a 20 min driving test many years ago and no questons were asked of him with regard to driving while tired.
Jason
So what about Nuclear Waste ?
If the original plans for nuclear independance had not been hijacked by accountants and tecnophobic greens, there would be no nuclear waste as fast breeder rectors can produce power or fuel to suit demand. Unfortunately this is all now history, however it is still true that the bulk of nuclear waste is generated by military use, not domestic power production and the waste pruduced by power generation is low grade fairly short half life which can be dealt with. In addition Nuclear waste poses no threat to the environment provided it is managed properly, indeed domestic household waste which is far more difficult to control poses a much bigger threat to the environment.
As for the families of the train crash, obviously I sypathise with them. It would be far better if this tradgedy had never happened. I am now sitting watching a BBC documentary on the train crash, which has replaced "The hunt for red october" (good film), The full transcript of the Bin laden tape has not yet been aired. No documentary exists this evening explaining its discovery or significance.
The bombing of the twin towers was a deliberate act of terrorism killing 10000 people. Falling asleep at the wheel is a mistake. There are several precedents on the issue of causing death by making a mistake. The sealink ferry that left the doors open, no one went to jail. The Bow bell on the Thames, no one went to jail. These accidents of course were mistakes by professionals who definately had responsibility for managing in the conditions given. Hart, however was only responsible for his vehicle. The poor barrier design was not his responsiblity. The fact that despite Land Rovers assurance that the vehicle was in perfect condition it is unlikley that this was the case as regardless of more than 50 years to perfect the design the front suspension and transmission have basic design flaws which can render the vehicle unfit for the road. The real crux of the matter is that this guy was driving faster than the police driver could manage. As a result they have decided to pick on him at all costs.
So what about Nuclear Waste ?
If the original plans for nuclear independance had not been hijacked by accountants and tecnophobic greens, there would be no nuclear waste as fast breeder rectors can produce power or fuel to suit demand. Unfortunately this is all now history, however it is still true that the bulk of nuclear waste is generated by military use, not domestic power production and the waste pruduced by power generation is low grade fairly short half life which can be dealt with. In addition Nuclear waste poses no threat to the environment provided it is managed properly, indeed domestic household waste which is far more difficult to control poses a much bigger threat to the environment.
As for the families of the train crash, obviously I sypathise with them. It would be far better if this tradgedy had never happened. I am now sitting watching a BBC documentary on the train crash, which has replaced "The hunt for red october" (good film), The full transcript of the Bin laden tape has not yet been aired. No documentary exists this evening explaining its discovery or significance.
The bombing of the twin towers was a deliberate act of terrorism killing 10000 people. Falling asleep at the wheel is a mistake. There are several precedents on the issue of causing death by making a mistake. The sealink ferry that left the doors open, no one went to jail. The Bow bell on the Thames, no one went to jail. These accidents of course were mistakes by professionals who definately had responsibility for managing in the conditions given. Hart, however was only responsible for his vehicle. The poor barrier design was not his responsiblity. The fact that despite Land Rovers assurance that the vehicle was in perfect condition it is unlikley that this was the case as regardless of more than 50 years to perfect the design the front suspension and transmission have basic design flaws which can render the vehicle unfit for the road. The real crux of the matter is that this guy was driving faster than the police driver could manage. As a result they have decided to pick on him at all costs.
quote:
Nonegreen and ATG
With regard to Gary Hart,surely driving whilst tired must come into the same category as drinking and driving.In both cases your driving ability is vastly impaired,it is something you are solely responsible for doing.If,because of yor actions, people lose their lives then yes, prison is a fair result.He must have known he was tired,he could have stopped and had a nap.His negligence led to the deaths of 10 people as surely as if he had shot them.He got what he deserved.
As for prison being a deterrent,it will stop him from doing it again,when he gets out.
I think the removal of Harts driving licence will be sufficient to protect society. He is after all a law abiding citizen and there is no suggestion he is likey to drive while banned. I dont really think Hart will learn anything from being locked up except that should he regain his freedom he will in future know to commit offences in stolen vehicles and if he were to do the same again in his own vehicle the answer is to leave the scene and report the vehicle stolen. As for DD being the same as driving while tired. Well drinking and driving is quite a deliberate act driving while tired seems to be a fairly passive trap which anyone could fall into. As for prison being a fair result well some real criminals are given seats in the lords minor criminals are jailed, I cant understand it really unless the connection is buggery.
Nuclear power
2 issues 1 meltdown. Meltdown is prevented by safety systems and contained by the design of the plant. There are many safety systems in place in UK powere plants, all of which can be tested and frequently are. All of the safety shutdown is designed to failsafe relying on gravity etc to close the reator down. In the unlikely event of gravity failing containment is there to prevent a core melting through the earths crust and descending toward the centre. The safety systems in UK plant are the best in the world, but the US have the best containment. Meltdown does not occur because of human error it required 15 separate safety sytems to be overiden at Chenobyl to cause the disaster. The containment was not designed into the plant so meltdown occured.
2 Why did technophobes ensure nuclear waste? Well the original system devised was a progressive developent of nuclear reactors culminating in fast breaders. the development programme was stopped and so we are left with Magnox and AGRs which produce waste. They were never intended to have the life cycle they have had and so the waste was caused by the accountants and technopobes.
Wind power and presumably wave power are really not that great. I suspect wave power once tried on an industrial scale will wreck large chunks of ocean and coastline and windpower is such an eysore as to be totally out of the question.
A friend of mine was on the 110th floor of the north tower on Septembet 11th. This was an act carried out by a fanatic with calculated deliberacy. All acts of stupidity are totally different with respect to intent. The media continue to project the views of bleeding heart liberals while condemning motorists as criminals. I dont believe anyone would set Hart or any other motorist who has killed through stupidity, free, however I think the media coverage is designed to spin the persecution of motorists as acceptable. Ultimately the problem is how far do these idiots plan to go. How long before mothers are prosecuted for allowing the kids to distract them while driving. How long before the car stereo is banned. Its the thin end of the wedge.
quote:
It has happened, however the public outcry caused the person who was injured to drop the case. I`d pursue it.
Nonegreen, what are your Qualifications (Law, Physics ) ???
Edited by Jason F on Saturday 15th December 15:22
Bsc Hons (mechanical engineering), DMS MA MBA what of it????
My point was really that all these issues of breaking concentration or reducing driver effectiveness can be addressed by public information and driver training. Locking people up makes no sense at all, particularly when the worst offenders can be removed from the road which is where they caused a problem. Why would you wish to punish children by removing their mothers freedom?
How do you determine the worst offender ? That is half the damn problem IMHO..
The people I consider awful are those who tailgate at 80mph, those who maintain this speed whilst in heavy fog, and those who`s attention is on something (noisy kiddie etc) rather than on the road. Can`t remember the stats, but I read somewhere that kids distracting parents is quite a proportion of RTAs and when I was last on the A1, the young lady in the Range Rover who was swerving All over the place cause she was turning round and doing something to/with the kid in the back whilst in the outside lane at 80mph showed why.
Yep I agree with all of that. The worst offenders are probably in all those catagories. As for determining who, well I guess its best done on a case by case basis. It kind of occured to me that the only people who should end up behind bars are those who drive while banned or nick cars then kill people with them. (on the basis of intent). Or is that too simplistic? If we want to effect a cultural change on the way the motoring public behave, then putting the concept that, the basic learners test is not good enough and it is the responsibilty of drivers to improve their skils through further training in the minds of the great unwashed might be the way to go.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff