Discussion
quote:
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.quote:
nongreen - glad we agree (and I really think we do on most of this).
Will repond in full at some point in the future when I don't have serious code issues to deal with!!
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.
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.
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?
ATG made the point I was trying to make far more elegantly. Thanks 
Nonegren although I agre with you a fair amount, your generalisation of the 'anti-car-lobby', smacks of paranoia and conspiracy theories.
I don't see this government being 'green' - ie hard line conservationists - (just approved more nuclear pwer stations etc!). I see them milking motorists certainly cos theres lots of them and they have cash, but that hasn't got anything to do with 'being green', it's just simple economics.
A I'm saying is that I don't see any big conspiracy by little 'green' men...
Nonegren although I agre with you a fair amount, your generalisation of the 'anti-car-lobby', smacks of paranoia and conspiracy theories.
I don't see this government being 'green' - ie hard line conservationists - (just approved more nuclear pwer stations etc!). I see them milking motorists certainly cos theres lots of them and they have cash, but that hasn't got anything to do with 'being green', it's just simple economics.
A I'm saying is that I don't see any big conspiracy by little 'green' men...
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.
quote:
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.
So what about Nuclear Waste ?
quote:
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
Can`t really argue with that Logic
quote:
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.
Tell that to the families of 10 people that died due to a mans desire to drive when too tired to do so
Jason on that last point have to disagree. "Tell that to the families of 10 people that died due to a mans desire to drive when too tired to do so " Does this mean that prison is for revenge, not correction? Sending him to prison won't bring those people back.
I feel for this poor bloke. We have all at some stage driven when we have known that we were not at our best. (eg colds, late night, early starts etc.) What about a person who colapses at the wheel because of a heart attack? Is he now guilty of dangerous driving (he may have felt off colour, or had indigestion). Are we all now bound to answer the question "how much sleep did you have last night, sir?" in an accident.
This was definately a case where it was judged by the Media.
Edited by smeagol on Thursday 13th December 22:38
I feel for this poor bloke. We have all at some stage driven when we have known that we were not at our best. (eg colds, late night, early starts etc.) What about a person who colapses at the wheel because of a heart attack? Is he now guilty of dangerous driving (he may have felt off colour, or had indigestion). Are we all now bound to answer the question "how much sleep did you have last night, sir?" in an accident.
This was definately a case where it was judged by the Media.
Edited by smeagol on Thursday 13th December 22:38
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.
ha ha ... proper debate .. pretty rare.
Interesting fact .. more background radiation is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels (release of radioactive carbon) than to nuclear power. Background count is however still raised due to air bursting of nuclear weapons in 1940s/50s. Nonetheless, if (big 'if' too) you end up with some plutonium inside your body due to a cock up at Sellafield, risk to your health is severe. Truth is that, as per usual, the epidemiological evidence is inconclusive. But it is clear that nuclear power is not killing thousands of people near power plants because the mortality figures would show this up. There are bigger risks out there, like crossing the road, smoking fags etc, but people think they are in control of those risks which makes them okay. Go figure....
Gary Hart verdict raises interesting questions/concerns. If the results of your actions are out of all proportion to what you might reasonably expect, should you be held responsible for the actual outcome? (I'd say no.) Sentences can serve a combination of three things:
1. Retribution
2. Deterrent to other potential offenders
3. Reform of the offender
(3) is laudable. (2) is dodgy in a society that values the right of the individual over the collective. (1) is stone age and must be dismissed ... unless you read and believe the Telegraph in which case don your white cape and grab a can of petrol.
Hart's verdict seems to be pushing (2) to the very limit.
Interesting fact .. more background radiation is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels (release of radioactive carbon) than to nuclear power. Background count is however still raised due to air bursting of nuclear weapons in 1940s/50s. Nonetheless, if (big 'if' too) you end up with some plutonium inside your body due to a cock up at Sellafield, risk to your health is severe. Truth is that, as per usual, the epidemiological evidence is inconclusive. But it is clear that nuclear power is not killing thousands of people near power plants because the mortality figures would show this up. There are bigger risks out there, like crossing the road, smoking fags etc, but people think they are in control of those risks which makes them okay. Go figure....
Gary Hart verdict raises interesting questions/concerns. If the results of your actions are out of all proportion to what you might reasonably expect, should you be held responsible for the actual outcome? (I'd say no.) Sentences can serve a combination of three things:
1. Retribution
2. Deterrent to other potential offenders
3. Reform of the offender
(3) is laudable. (2) is dodgy in a society that values the right of the individual over the collective. (1) is stone age and must be dismissed ... unless you read and believe the Telegraph in which case don your white cape and grab a can of petrol.
Hart's verdict seems to be pushing (2) to the very limit.
mode on Smeagol, I`m afraid that prison is indeed there to Punish offenders (has been for hundreds of years), and to remove them from society in order to protect the innocent. It is also supposed to act as a deterrent. Law is based (sort of) on morality and morality for thousands of years was set by the church, and an eye for an eye is quite prevalent. How right that is, is for you to decide.
While Mr Hart did not set out to kill someone, his actions led to the deaths of 10 people (this precedent was set a hundred or so years ago when a man punched a prostitute and knocked her out, she rolled down an embankment and into the river where she drowned. The man did not intend to kill her(malice aforethought) but his actions led directly to her death and as such he was jailed)
As for radiation, you would be amazed at how noisy those wonderful little Geiger Counters get when you point it at yourself.
.. But if a Nuclear Power station makes a mistake and melts down then the consequences are extreme, and that is I think the reason for peoples dislike of them..... Nonegreen, please explain what these Technophobes did to ensure that there would be Nuclear Waste. I am curious.
I also would like to mention Hydroelectric Power and Wind Power for pretty environmentally friendly solutions...
I agree that the twin towers was an atrocity and the offenders should be found and Punished (SOD of USA thinks so too - DEAD or Alive, preferably Dead)
Anyone who attacks innocent people IMHO is not right in the head. But does anyone think a nice spell in prison will rehabilitate them ?
Right, thats a little more fuel to the fire.. argumentative mode off..
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.
Regards
Edited by lorus on Friday 14th December 11:12
Edited by lorus on Friday 14th December 11:14
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.
Regards
Edited by lorus on Friday 14th December 11:12
Edited by lorus on Friday 14th December 11:14
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.
"eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" makes the world blind and toothless.
Gary Hart should not have been jailed. Its clear he was responsible but a jail sentence will not amend his ways (he is already remorseful). A ban from driving would have. It would also have detered other drivers just as effectively.
As nonegreen has described there have been lots of other trajedies where no-one was jailed. Also my main question would be for the barrier builders: why the car ended up on tracks. If a person loses control either by blow out, passing out, or sleeping they should never have ended up on the tracks.
Accidents happen, people make mistakes, its a fact of life and I'm afraid death.
"Every body makes mistakes" said the Darlek climbing off the dustbin.
Gary Hart should not have been jailed. Its clear he was responsible but a jail sentence will not amend his ways (he is already remorseful). A ban from driving would have. It would also have detered other drivers just as effectively.
As nonegreen has described there have been lots of other trajedies where no-one was jailed. Also my main question would be for the barrier builders: why the car ended up on tracks. If a person loses control either by blow out, passing out, or sleeping they should never have ended up on the tracks.
Accidents happen, people make mistakes, its a fact of life and I'm afraid death.
"Every body makes mistakes" said the Darlek climbing off the dustbin.
Yes,
I would be like the people you have seen (the media do not help). BUT it HAS happenned to me, A good friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver when I was a student. At first you feel mad, upset and revengeful, but then you have to think that 'these things happen'. I never found out what happened to the driver, they might still be on the road.
I feel very sorry for the friends/relations of the people that have died. But putting this man in jail won't bring them back (like jailing the drunk driver would not bring my friend back) You do have to live on, its hard, upsetting but the saying "life goes on" does apply.
PS sorry about the late editing got interupted by a phone call.
Edited by smeagol on Friday 14th December 17:50
I would be like the people you have seen (the media do not help). BUT it HAS happenned to me, A good friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver when I was a student. At first you feel mad, upset and revengeful, but then you have to think that 'these things happen'. I never found out what happened to the driver, they might still be on the road.
I feel very sorry for the friends/relations of the people that have died. But putting this man in jail won't bring them back (like jailing the drunk driver would not bring my friend back) You do have to live on, its hard, upsetting but the saying "life goes on" does apply.
PS sorry about the late editing got interupted by a phone call.
Edited by smeagol on Friday 14th December 17:50
My nephew was killed by a drunk driver.The to$$pot may as well have killed my brother and his wife 'cos their lives ended there and then.He was out after 3 years and is back living his life as though nothing happened.Try saying "these things happen" to my brother and I promise you you'll be waking up with a crowd round you!
There is no meaningful compensation for their loss. It can't be made better by any level of punishment. You can't expect a victim to have a balanced view about how the criminal should be treated. I find it pretty offensive how the media exploit many victims emotional out-pourings when a verdict is given as it usually paints the victims in pretty unfavourable colours.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff