For those motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and fail to
see a connection between this article and transport here is are some
hints, power station/electric train/battery charging/hydrogen
production.

"Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
time to save the climate."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/false-hope

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/false-hope.pdf

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

"Doug"  wrote


 > For those motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup




There's only one thing that dominates this newsgroup, Doug.



-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary   Luton-Huelva

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34657 (New 9th August 2008)

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:5992ca99-b4c2-4d2e-bf26-08451ae60554@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> For those motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and fail to
> see a connection between this article and transport here is are some
> hints, power station/electric train/battery charging/hydrogen
> production.

Bzzzz. WRONG! Thank you for playing.

You are making the connection and vaguely relating something to transport. 
No-one else is.

Should I talk about pruning my fuschia on this newsgroup because it was no 
doubt brought by truck to the garden centre, and then by car to my house? It 
has about as much connection.

Doug  wrote:

> "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
> burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
> station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
> development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
> justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
> However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
> time to save the climate."

<yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
first carbon capture power station is already working.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm

On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
> first carbon capture power station is already working.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm

As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of muppets
like Doug.

B2003

Doug wrote:
> For those motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and fail to
> see a connection between this article and transport here is are some
> hints, power station/electric train/battery charging/hydrogen
> production.
> 
> "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
> burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
> station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
> development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
> justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
> However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
> time to save the climate."

Only one thing *would* save the climate in your world - that's if we all 
went back to the stone age.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

John Wright wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> For those motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and fail to
>> see a connection between this article and transport here is are some
>> hints, power station/electric train/battery charging/hydrogen
>> production.
>>
>> "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
>> burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
>> station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
>> development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
>> justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
>> However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
>> time to save the climate."
> 
> Only one thing *would* save the climate in your world - that's if we all 
> went back to the stone age.
> 

Think of the hypermobility of those making stonehenge.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Boltar  wrote:

> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of muppets
> like Doug.

There was a program on R4 last week where someone ex-~Greenpeace made
much the same point. As he said, the environmental lobby needs to stop
beign anti-everything negative know-alls (like Duhg), and to get off the
fence and decide which technologies they support and which they don't.

Interestingly he was against wind power on the basis that it isn't
performing that well in Denmark where 20% of installed capacity is wind
generation and Denmark has the advantage of being able to balance its
load by feeding surpluses to Germany, Sweden and Holland. The UK doesn't
have the ability to balance load in the same way and needs to install
pump storage (which doesn't exist and isn't scheduled to be built).

There's another problem as well. All the manufacturers of wind turbines
have full order books for the next two years at least and arent taking
any new orders at present. Attempts to use cheap Chinese turbines have
ended in disaster.

Ooh look, nuclear and sequestered CO2 coal fired.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote

> Interestingly he was against wind power on the basis that it isn't
> performing that well in Denmark




I'm against wind power on the grounds that Denmark used to be beautiful and 
now it is ugly, thanks entirely to wind turbines.

Cornwall is the same.



-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary   Luton-Huelva

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34657 (New 9th August 2008)

Steve Firth wrote:
> Boltar  wrote:
> 
>> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
>> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
>> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
>> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of muppets
>> like Doug.
> 
> There was a program on R4 last week where someone ex-~Greenpeace made
> much the same point. As he said, the environmental lobby needs to stop
> beign anti-everything negative know-alls (like Duhg), and to get off the
> fence and decide which technologies they support and which they don't.
> 
> Interestingly he was against wind power on the basis that it isn't
> performing that well in Denmark where 20% of installed capacity is wind
> generation and Denmark has the advantage of being able to balance its
> load by feeding surpluses to Germany, Sweden and Holland. The UK doesn't
> have the ability to balance load in the same way and needs to install
> pump storage (which doesn't exist and isn't scheduled to be built).
> 
> There's another problem as well. All the manufacturers of wind turbines
> have full order books for the next two years at least and arent taking
> any new orders at present. Attempts to use cheap Chinese turbines have
> ended in disaster.
> 
> Ooh look, nuclear and sequestered CO2 coal fired.

Just a correction, pumped storage does exist in the UK although not much.
FFESTINIOG & DINORWIG  in Wales & I believe some may be planned in Scotland.
There may be others.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon  wrote:

> Just a correction, pumped storage does exist in the UK although not much.
> FFESTINIOG & DINORWIG  in Wales & I believe some may be planned in Scotland.
> There may be others.

You're misreading what I said. I'm well aware of the existence of pumped
storage in the UK. However windfarms require capacity that does not
exist, the existing schemes are insufficient.

"Graculus"  wrote



> Should I talk about pruning my fuschia on this newsgroup because it was no 
> doubt brought by truck to the garden centre





Here's a joke just for Doug, purely because of his hatred of waste of fossil 
fuels...




Q. What's black and famous?










A. The Foster family mansion.






-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary   Luton-Huelva

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34657 (New 9th August 2008)

Steve Firth wrote:
> Tony Dragon  wrote:
> 
>> Just a correction, pumped storage does exist in the UK although not much.
>> FFESTINIOG & DINORWIG  in Wales & I believe some may be planned in Scotland.
>> There may be others.
> 
> You're misreading what I said. I'm well aware of the existence of pumped
> storage in the UK. However windfarms require capacity that does not
> exist, the existing schemes are insufficient.

OK but thats not how I read it.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
> > burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
> > station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
> > development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
> > justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
> > However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
> > time to save the climate."
>
> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
> first carbon capture power station is already working.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm

Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
scale trial. Ouch, you toes must rerally hurt now.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 5 Sep, 19:05, Boltar  wrote:
> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
> > first carbon capture power station is already working.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>
> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of muppets
> like Doug.
>
> B2003

No as always you are missing the point. There is a plethora of
greenwash wannabe-fixes for the widespread and profitable continuing
wanton waste of energy with its attendant pollution. Instead,
attention should be fixed on reducing consumption as this will also
reduce pollution and works whereas carbon capture is nothing more than
an unworkable con, as you will see if you read the article.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0926d823-320a-4752-8a13-8ee5fc2cd83f@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Doug  wrote:
>> > "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
>> > burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
>> > station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
>> > development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
>> > justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
>> > However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
>> > time to save the climate."
>>
>> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
>> first carbon capture power station is already working.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>
> Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
> scale trial.

So we should all give up and go home, should we? My, what progress the human 
race would have made if we didn't bother continuing if initial experiements 
and trials didn't provide the scale of results we were looking for.

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Sep, 19:05, Boltar  wrote:
>> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>
>>> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
>>> first carbon capture power station is already working.
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>>
>> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
>> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
>> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
>> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of
>> muppets like Doug.
>>
>> B2003
>
> No as always you are missing the point. There is a plethora of
> greenwash wannabe-fixes for the widespread and profitable continuing
> wanton waste of energy with its attendant pollution. Instead,
> attention should be fixed on reducing consumption as this will also
> reduce pollution and works whereas carbon capture is nothing more than
> an unworkable con, as you will see if you read the article.

How do you propose that an increasing population reduces consumption Doug?

In article <8a3fbc56-d949-4621-a986-
471f9193df2c@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> No as always you are missing the point. There is a plethora of
> greenwash wannabe-fixes 

Wind power, solar....

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug  wrote:

> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Doug  wrote:
> > > "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
> > > burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
> > > station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
> > > development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
> > > justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
> > > However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
> > > time to save the climate."
> >
> > <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
> > first carbon capture power station is already working.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
> 
> Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
> scale trial. 

But it exists and the technology is proven at one scale, 50MW. That is
not "unproven".

> Ouch, you toes must rerally hurt now.

Oh dear, you're getting all excited and losing the ability to write
coherent English. Are you sure you don't have your hand up Toomy's arse?

Graculus  wrote:

> "Doug"  wrote in message 
> news:0926d823-320a-4752-8a13-8ee5fc2cd83f@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> Doug  wrote:
> >> > "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
> >> > burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
> >> > station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
> >> > development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
> >> > justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
> >> > However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
> >> > time to save the climate."
> >>
> >> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
> >> first carbon capture power station is already working.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
> >
> > Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
> > scale trial.
> 
> So we should all give up and go home, should we? My, what progress the human
> race would have made if we didn't bother continuing if initial experiements
> and trials didn't provide the scale of results we were looking for. 

The trial has already proven the technology. What it remains to prove is
the economics of operation and the long-term feasibility of carbon
capture. It's a very neat solution and unlike other technologies I can't
see any great problem with scalability of the solution. We already have
well developed technology for the transmission of gas over national
distances and for the injection of gas into underground reservoirs. We
already know that the reservoirs beneath the North Sea have held gas for
millenia. And there's a slight advantage with CO2 in that it is more
compressible than methane and less hazardous to store and transport.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:8a3fbc56-d949-4621-a986-471f9193df2c@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Sep, 19:05, Boltar  wrote:
>> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>
>> > <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
>> > first carbon capture power station is already working.
>>
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>>
>> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
>> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
>> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
>> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of muppets
>> like Doug.
>>
>> B2003
>
> No as always you are missing the point. There is a plethora of
> greenwash wannabe-fixes for the widespread and profitable continuing
> wanton waste of energy with its attendant pollution. Instead,
> attention should be fixed on reducing consumption as this will also
> reduce pollution and works whereas carbon capture is nothing more than
> an unworkable con, as you will see if you read the article.

Do you honestly think anyone listens to a word you preach, or, gives a 
flying fuck  ?

"Gizmo." <mo¬01@ltlrm3.com> wrote in message 
news:6kxwk.426033$JM.147961@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> "Doug"  wrote in message 
> news:8a3fbc56-d949-4621-a986-471f9193df2c@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On 5 Sep, 19:05, Boltar  wrote:
>>> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>
>>> > <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
>>> > first carbon capture power station is already working.
>>>
>>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>>>
>>> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
>>> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
>>> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
>>> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of muppets
>>> like Doug.
>>>
>>> B2003
>>
>> No as always you are missing the point. There is a plethora of
>> greenwash wannabe-fixes for the widespread and profitable continuing
>> wanton waste of energy with its attendant pollution. Instead,
>> attention should be fixed on reducing consumption as this will also
>> reduce pollution and works whereas carbon capture is nothing more than
>> an unworkable con, as you will see if you read the article.
>
> Do you honestly think anyone listens to a word you preach, or, gives a 
> flying fuck  ?
Pretty much sums it up. Trouble is, we all seem to have this morbid 
fascination with the Collected Ramblings of Doug the Pontificator, and feel 
duty bound to continue to tell him what an arse he is.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:27:49 +0100, "Gizmo." <mo¬01@ltlrm3.com> wrote:

>
>"Doug"  wrote in message  ...

Infantile "boys own" twaddle <Allsnipped>

>
>Do you honestly think anyone listens to a word you preach, or, gives a 
>flying fuck  ? 
>

On the whole I think I'd prefer a rolling donut.

Derek

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>> Boltar  wrote:
>>
>>> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
>>> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
>>> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
>>> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of muppets
>>> like Doug.
>>
>> There was a program on R4 last week where someone ex-~Greenpeace made
>> much the same point. As he said, the environmental lobby needs to stop
>> beign anti-everything negative know-alls (like Duhg), and to get off the
>> fence and decide which technologies they support and which they don't.
>>
>> Interestingly he was against wind power on the basis that it isn't
>> performing that well in Denmark where 20% of installed capacity is wind
>> generation and Denmark has the advantage of being able to balance its
>> load by feeding surpluses to Germany, Sweden and Holland. The UK doesn't
>> have the ability to balance load in the same way and needs to install
>> pump storage (which doesn't exist and isn't scheduled to be built).
>>
>> There's another problem as well. All the manufacturers of wind turbines
>> have full order books for the next two years at least and arent taking
>> any new orders at present. Attempts to use cheap Chinese turbines have
>> ended in disaster.
>>
>> Ooh look, nuclear and sequestered CO2 coal fired.
> 
> Just a correction, pumped storage does exist in the UK although not much.
> FFESTINIOG & DINORWIG  in Wales & I believe some may be planned in 
> Scotland.
> There may be others.

There are only 4 in the UK - two of which are in Scotland - one at 
Foyers (near Loch Ness) and is the smallest one, the other at Ben 
Chruachan is older but bigger. but the total installed capacity is only 
2700 MWe.

You also need them with Nuclear power plants - simply because its not 
economical to turn them off at nights so the output goes to storage 
heaters (on Economy 7 or whatever they call it these days) and pumped 
storage.

Wind needs a wholly different pattern of storage.

I'm sure David Hansen will be along in a minute to say this is all 
wrong, so in advance of that can I just say that it isn't.



-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Doug  wrote:
>>> "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
>>> burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
>>> station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
>>> development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
>>> justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
>>> However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
>>> time to save the climate."
>> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
>> first carbon capture power station is already working.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
> 
> Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
> scale trial. Ouch, you toes must rerally hurt now.

Its exacly like I said in relation to the proposed Kingsnorth coal fired 
power station a week or two - a technology that exists but needs to be 
scaled up. We all knew that.

Your mates don't seem to care.

John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 6 Sep, 14:05, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Doug  wrote:
> > > > "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
> > > > burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
> > > > station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
> > > > development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
> > > > justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
> > > > However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
> > > > time to save the climate."
>
> > > <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
> > > first carbon capture power station is already working.
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>
> > Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
> > scale trial.
>
> But it exists and the technology is proven at one scale, 50MW. That is
> not "unproven".
>
Can't you read properly? This small scale pilot project is not due to
start working until next week, let alone prove the viability of
"...transported to a gas field and forced 1,000m below the surface
into porous rock where it should stay until long after mankind has
stopped worrying about climate change." Yeah sure! And how long do we
have to wait to make sure it stays there long enough, if at all?
>
> > Ouch, you toes must rerally hurt now.
>
> Oh dear, you're getting all excited and losing the ability to write
> coherent English. Are you sure you don't have your hand up Toomy's arse?
>
Oh dear, seeking refuge in typo spotting, Filth? You must be getting
rerally desperate.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The 4x4, more of a sewer than a convenience".

Doug  wrote:

> > But it exists and the technology is proven at one scale, 50MW. That is
> > not "unproven".
> >
> Can't you read properly? 

Yes, I can both read and understand. This makes me very different from
you Duhg "Two Ozones" Bollen.

> This small scale pilot project is not due to
> start working until next week,

<yawn> None of the technology to be used is "unproven".

> let alone prove the viability of "...transported to a gas field and forced
> 1,000m below the surface into porous rock where it should stay until long
> after mankind has stopped worrying about climate change." Yeah sure! And
> how long do we have to wait to make sure it stays there long enough, if at
> all?

Duhng we've been pumping gasses into the North Sea for years. We know
that it works and that the methane that was stored in those rocks was
there for thousands (and indeed millions) of years.

> > > Ouch, you toes must rerally hurt now.
> >
> > Oh dear, you're getting all excited and losing the ability to write
> > coherent English. Are you sure you don't have your hand up Toomy's arse?
> >
> Oh dear, seeking refuge in typo spotting, Filth? You must be getting
> rerally desperate.

Oh yes, I'm "rearally" somethng or other. Whatever the fuck that means.

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 5 Sep, 19:05, Boltar  wrote:
>>> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>
>>>> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng?
>>>> The first carbon capture power station is already working.
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>>>
>>> As usual greenpeace complain about just about bloody everything.
>>> Perhaps they'd be happier if the CO2 was just released into the
>>> atmosphere instead of the power company trying to make an effort to
>>> sequester it. They're just becoming a parody. Probably full of
>>> muppets like Doug.
>>>
>>> B2003
>>
>> No as always you are missing the point. There is a plethora of
>> greenwash wannabe-fixes for the widespread and profitable continuing
>> wanton waste of energy with its attendant pollution. Instead,
>> attention should be fixed on reducing consumption as this will also
>> reduce pollution and works whereas carbon capture is nothing more
>> than an unworkable con, as you will see if you read the article.
>
> How do you propose that an increasing population reduces consumption
> Doug?

No response Doug?

On 6 Sep, 20:14, John Wright  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> Doug  wrote:
> >>> "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
> >>> burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
> >>> station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
> >>> development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
> >>> justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
> >>> However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
> >>> time to save the climate."
> >> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
> >> first carbon capture power station is already working.
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>
> > Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
> > scale trial. Ouch, you toes must rerally hurt now.
>
> Its exacly like I said in relation to the proposedKingsnorthcoal fired
> power station a week or two - a technology that exists but needs to be
> scaled up. We all knew that.
>
> Your mates don't seem to care.
>
Those on this newsgroup who have no respect for human rights or civil
liberties and who hate public protesters will dislike this news.

The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further damage
around the world from global warming.

This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm
to prevent a greater amount of harm. I wonder if this would apply to
putting paint stripper on filthy 4x4s?

"...He said: "When 12 normal people say it is legitimate for a direct
acting group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the
harm it does to our planet then where does that leave government
energy policy?"... "

More:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7608054.stm

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The 4x4, more of a sewer than a convenience".

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
> found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
> damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further damage
> around the world from global warming.
> 
> This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm to
> prevent a greater amount of harm.

Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's 
deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond 
reasonable doubt.

Of course, it also shoots your various theories about our judicial system 
down in flames...

> I wonder if this would apply to putting paint stripper on filthy 4x4s?

Why don't you find out?

Doug wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 20:14, John Wright  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 5 Sep, 18:29, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>> Doug  wrote:
>>>>> "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of
>>>>> burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power
>>>>> station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future
>>>>> development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a
>>>>> justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
>>>>> However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in
>>>>> time to save the climate."
>>>> <yawn> Do you ever get tired of blowing off your own toes Duhng? The
>>>> first carbon capture power station is already working.
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
>>> Duh! Do try to pay attention, Filth. It is an as yet unproven small
>>> scale trial. Ouch, you toes must rerally hurt now.
>> Its exacly like I said in relation to the proposedKingsnorthcoal fired
>> power station a week or two - a technology that exists but needs to be
>> scaled up. We all knew that.
>>
>> Your mates don't seem to care.
>>
> Those on this newsgroup who have no respect for human rights or civil
> liberties and who hate public protesters will dislike this news.
> 
> The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
> found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
> damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further damage
> around the world from global warming.
> 
> This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm
> to prevent a greater amount of harm. I wonder if this would apply to
> putting paint stripper on filthy 4x4s?

No it doesn't

> "...He said: "When 12 normal people say it is legitimate for a direct
> acting group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the
> harm it does to our planet then where does that leave government
> energy policy?"... "

The relevance of this to what I posted: Nil.
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Adrian wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
>> found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
>> damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further
>> damage around the world from global warming.
>>
>> This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm
>> to prevent a greater amount of harm.
>
> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
> reasonable doubt.
>
> Of course, it also shoots your various theories about our judicial
> system down in flames...
>
>> I wonder if this would apply to putting paint stripper on filthy
>> 4x4s?
>
> Why don't you find out?

He's too spineless.

"Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>> I wonder if this would apply to putting paint stripper on filthy 4x4s?

>> Why don't you find out?

> He's too spineless.

I know, but I want to hear his pathetic attempt to wriggle out of it.

Adrian wrote:
> "Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>>> I wonder if this would apply to putting paint stripper on filthy
>>>> 4x4s?
>
>>> Why don't you find out?
>
>> He's too spineless.
>
> I know, but I want to hear his pathetic attempt to wriggle out of it.

<fx: deafening silence>

On 10 Sep, 17:26, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
> > found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
> > damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further damage
> > around the world from global warming.
>
> > This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm to
> > prevent a greater amount of harm.
>
> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
> reasonable doubt.
>
There have been previous cases, such as protesters damaging warplanes,
where they have been found not guilty on a similar basis and don't
forget the defence made by the protesters which the jury must have
considered.
>
> Of course, it also shoots your various theories about our judicial system
> down in flames...
>
How so? It merely confirms the inconsistency of our judicial system.
>
> > I wonder if this would apply to putting paint stripper on filthy 4x4s?
>
> Why don't you find out?
>
Are you trying to incite me to cause harm? I am fairly sure that is a
punishable offence.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 10 Sep, 17:26, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
> > found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
> > damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further damage
> > around the world from global warming.
>
> > This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm to
> > prevent a greater amount of harm.
>
> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
> reasonable doubt.
>
LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.

"Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"
to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even
greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful
excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused
to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the
door of a burning house to tackle a fire."

More:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

So maybe disabling very polluting cars might be lawful then?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The 4x4, more of a sewer than a convenience".

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm
>> > to prevent a greater amount of harm.

>> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
>> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
>> reasonable doubt.

> LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
> 
> "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"

And how do they know that, since it's an offence for the jurors to 
discuss their deliberations? Simple. It's a _guess_...

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> There have been previous cases, such as protesters damaging warplanes,
> where they have been found not guilty on a similar basis and don't
> forget the defence made by the protesters which the jury must have
> considered.

Must have considered, yes. But how do you know what the jury gave 
credence to and what they didn't? You don't. Unless you were on the jury.

>> Of course, it also shoots your various theories about our judicial
>> system down in flames...

> How so? It merely confirms the inconsistency of our judicial system.

Sorry, I thought you just said there was a legal precedent.

>> > I wonder if this would apply to putting paint stripper on filthy
>> > 4x4s?

>> Why don't you find out?

> Are you trying to incite me to cause harm?

No, I'm just asking why you don't do a little basic research.

> I am fairly sure that is a punishable offence.

Not if the actual act isn't an offence...

On 11 Sep, 07:25, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> > This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm
> >> > to prevent a greater amount of harm.
> >> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
> >> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
> >> reasonable doubt.
> > LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>
> > "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"
>
> And how do they know that, since it's an offence for the jurors to
> discuss their deliberations? Simple. It's a _guess_...

Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
protesters only defence and no other.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>>
>> > "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"

>> And how do they know that, since it's an offence for the jurors to
>> discuss their deliberations? Simple. It's a _guess_...

> Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
> protesters only defence and no other.

<sigh>
It's not the defence's job to convince the jury, it's the defence's job 
to prevent the prosecution convincing the jury.

"Beyond reasonable doubt"

On 11 Sep, 07:36, Doug  wrote:
> On 11 Sep, 07:25, Adrian  wrote:
>
> > Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > >> > This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm
> > >> > to prevent a greater amount of harm.
> > >> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
> > >> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
> > >> reasonable doubt.
> > > LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>
> > > "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"
>
> > And how do they know that, since it's an offence for the jurors to
> > discuss their deliberations? Simple. It's a _guess_...
>
> Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
> protesters only defence and no other.

Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?

Once again, Gollum, you demonstrate your total igorance of even the
basics of a subject on which you like to pontificate.  You really are
a retard, Gollum.

On 11 Sep, 07:22, Doug  wrote:
> On 10 Sep, 17:26, Adrian  wrote:> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > > The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
> > > found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
> > > damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further damage
> > > around the world from global warming.
>
> > > This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm to
> > > prevent a greater amount of harm.
>
> > Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
> > deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
> > reasonable doubt.
>
> LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>
> "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"
> to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even
> greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful
> excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused
> to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the
> door of a burning house to tackle a fire."

Bzzzt - wrong.  Unless the journalist spoke to the jurors in question
(which is unlikely, as it would constitute a criminal offence), this
is nothing more than a guess.  In England, the actual reasons behind
the jury's decision are never revealed.

That's three basic fuck ups on criminal law in one day, Gollum - well
done.

On 11 Sep, 09:08, BrianW  wrote:
> On 11 Sep, 07:22, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Sep, 17:26, Adrian  wrote:> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > > saying:
>
> > > > The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have been
> > > > found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully right to
> > > > damage the plant because they believed it would prevent further damage
> > > > around the world from global warming.
>
> > > > This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of harm to
> > > > prevent a greater amount of harm.
>
> > > Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
> > > deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty beyond
> > > reasonable doubt.
>
> > LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>
> > "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"
> > to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even
> > greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful
> > excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused
> > to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the
> > door of a burning house to tackle a fire."
>
> Bzzzt - wrong.  Unless the journalist spoke to the jurors in question
> (which is unlikely, as it would constitute a criminal offence), this
> is nothing more than a guess.  In England, the actual reasons behind
> the jury's decision are never revealed.
>
> That's three basic fuck ups on criminal law in one day, Gollum - well
> done.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I wonder if it would be allowable to cut Dougs hands off to stop him
doing greater damage to this NG.



Francis

francis wrote:
> On 11 Sep, 09:08, BrianW  wrote:
>> On 11 Sep, 07:22, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Sep, 17:26, Adrian  wrote:> Doug
>>>  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> saying:
>>
>>>>> The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have
>>>>> been found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully
>>>>> right to damage the plant because they believed it would prevent
>>>>> further damage around the world from global warming.
>>
>>>>> This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of
>>>>> harm to prevent a greater amount of harm.
>>
>>>> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
>>>> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty
>>>> beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>>> LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>>
>>> "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful
>>> excuse"
>>> to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent
>>> even
>>> greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful
>>> excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be
>>> caused
>>> to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down
>>> the
>>> door of a burning house to tackle a fire."
>>
>> Bzzzt - wrong. Unless the journalist spoke to the jurors in question
>> (which is unlikely, as it would constitute a criminal offence), this
>> is nothing more than a guess. In England, the actual reasons behind
>> the jury's decision are never revealed.
>>
>> That's three basic fuck ups on criminal law in one day, Gollum - well
>> done.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I wonder if it would be allowable to cut Dougs hands off to stop him
> doing greater damage to this NG.
>
Or to break into his house and wreck his computers to achieve the same 
result?

On 11 Sep, 07:45, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> > LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>
> >> > "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"
> >> And how do they know that, since it's an offence for the jurors to
> >> discuss their deliberations? Simple. It's a _guess_...
> > Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
> > protesters only defence and no other.
>
> <sigh>
> It's not the defence's job to convince the jury, it's the defence's job
> to prevent the prosecution convincing the jury.
>
Don't be silly. Clearly the media and the court disagrees with your
peculiar personal opinion.
>
> "Beyond reasonable doubt"

What about it?

Here is another similar case.

"This afternoon, Tuesday 22 May, at Bristol Crown Court, the trial of
two Oxford peace activists Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch (known as
the 'B52 Two') concluded with the jury returning a unanimous verdict
of not-guilty- in less than three hours. The two were charged with
conspiring to cause criminal damage at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire
on 18 March 2003 when they tried to safely disable US B52 bombers to
prevent them from bombing Iraq[1]. The court heard the two men acted
to prevent damage to life and property in Iraq, and war crimes by the
aggressors."

What this opens up is the possibility of not being found guilty in law
of damaging cars and glueing locks, to name but two.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
>> > protesters only defence and no other.

>> <sigh>
>> It's not the defence's job to convince the jury, it's the defence's job
>> to prevent the prosecution convincing the jury.

> Don't be silly. Clearly the media and the court disagrees with your
> peculiar personal opinion.

<chuckle>

I don't give a fuck about the media, but I think you'll find that the 
court would agree with that "peculiar opinion".

>> "Beyond reasonable doubt"

> What about it?

You're priceless...

Look, Duhg, you keep proving you don't even have the loosest 
understanding of our legal system - have you considered doing some basic 
research?
 
> Here is another similar case.

...which has already been mentioned, both in the BBC article and in this 
thread...

> What this opens up is the possibility of not being found guilty in law
> of damaging cars and glueing locks, to name but two.

It's certainly a valid hypothesis. Now it needs testing - which, in this 
case, requires somebody to do so in a court of law.

Of course, there's also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3632417.stm

Adrian wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>> Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
>>>> protesters only defence and no other.
>
>>> <sigh>
>>> It's not the defence's job to convince the jury, it's the defence's
>>> job to prevent the prosecution convincing the jury.
>
>> Don't be silly. Clearly the media and the court disagrees with your
>> peculiar personal opinion.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> I don't give a fuck about the media, but I think you'll find that the
> court would agree with that "peculiar opinion".
>
>>> "Beyond reasonable doubt"
>
>> What about it?
>
> You're priceless...
>
> Look, Duhg, you keep proving you don't even have the loosest
> understanding of our legal system - have you considered doing some
> basic research?
>
>> Here is another similar case.
>
> ...which has already been mentioned, both in the BBC article and in
> this thread...
>
>> What this opens up is the possibility of not being found guilty in
>> law of damaging cars and glueing locks, to name but two.
>
> It's certainly a valid hypothesis. Now it needs testing - which, in
> this case, requires somebody to do so in a court of law.

So Doug, have you got the bottle to put it to the test and risk imprisonment 
or a fine?

> Of course, there's also
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3632417.stm

Doug would need to make sure of is reasons of course. Taking revenge on a 
third party for the inconsiderate actions of another is not a defence as 
demonstrated in that article.

On 11 Sep, 10:49, Doug  wrote:
> On 11 Sep, 07:45, Adrian  wrote:> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > >> > LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.
>
> > >> > "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse"
> > >> And how do they know that, since it's an offence for the jurors to
> > >> discuss their deliberations? Simple. It's a _guess_...
> > > Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
> > > protesters only defence and no other.
>
> > <sigh>
> > It's not the defence's job to convince the jury, it's the defence's job
> > to prevent the prosecution convincing the jury.
>
> Don't be silly. Clearly the media and the court disagrees with your
> peculiar personal opinion.

<stares>

Yes, he really did say that.

> > "Beyond reasonable doubt"

> What about it?

<stares again>

Um, it's only, like, the underlying basis of English criminal law.
Not at all important or relevant, then.

Here's a bit more remedial reading for you, Doug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof

On 11 Sep, 10:54, Adrian  wrote:
>
> You're priceless...
>
> Look, Duhg, you keep proving you don't even have the loosest
> understanding of our legal system - have you considered doing some basic
> research?

To be fair, Adrian, I suspect Doug has a great deal more *practical*
experience of the UK criminal justice system than any of us.  If you
get my drift ...

BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> Look, Duhg, you keep proving you don't even have the loosest
>> understanding of our legal system - have you considered doing some
>> basic research?

> To be fair, Adrian, I suspect Doug has a great deal more *practical*
> experience of the UK criminal justice system than any of us.  If you get
> my drift ...

He was probably shouting "Ha! I told you so!" as they took him down...

BrianW  wrote:

> Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
> found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
> prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
> Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?

It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
mates is a vindication of their methods; but a "not guilty" verdict for
a policeman is a sign that the British legal process is immoral and
bankrupt.

On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
> > found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
> > prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
> > Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
>
> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
> mates is a vindication of their methods; but a "not guilty" verdict for
> a policeman is a sign that the British legal process is immoral and
> bankrupt.

Good point.  The reality, I think, it that Dung would prefer to
replace the criminal justice system with the lynch mob, comprised (of
course) of his mates.

BrianW wrote:
> On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> BrianW  wrote:
>>> Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
>>> found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
>>> prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
>>> Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
>> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
>> mates is a vindication of their methods; but a "not guilty" verdict for
>> a policeman is a sign that the British legal process is immoral and
>> bankrupt.
> 
> Good point.  The reality, I think, it that Dung would prefer to
> replace the criminal justice system with the lynch mob, comprised (of
> course) of his mates.

Are you sure he has any?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon  wrote:

> BrianW wrote:
> > On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> BrianW  wrote:
> >>> Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
> >>> found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
> >>> prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
> >>> Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
> >> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
> >> mates is a vindication of their methods; but a "not guilty" verdict for
> >> a policeman is a sign that the British legal process is immoral and
> >> bankrupt.
> > 
> > Good point.  The reality, I think, it that Dung would prefer to
> > replace the criminal justice system with the lynch mob, comprised (of
> > course) of his mates.
> 
> Are you sure he has any?

Duhg walks into a pub where the local Greenpeace, Reclaim the Streets,
Vegan Society and other politically right-on groups that he admires are
having a meet and in an unusual fit of generosity shouts "Barman! Give
all of my friends here a drink!"

The barman goes over to the gathering and there is a great deal of
conversation and hand waving. The barman then returns to Duhg and says
"if you make it acquaintances, you've got a deal."

On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
> > found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
> > prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
> > Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
>
> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
> mates is a vindication of their methods
>
So are you condemning our jury system?
>
>; but a "not guilty" verdict for
> a policeman is a sign that the British legal process is immoral and
> bankrupt.
>
The difference you are missing is that the police are supposed to be
the guardians of the law and should be beyond reproach as well as
answerable for their actions

What I find particularly interesting about this whole business is that
juries seem to be pardoning an illegal act which is used to try to
curb something which is harmful but legal.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> BrianW  wrote:
>>> Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
>>> found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
>>> prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
>>> Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
>> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
>> mates is a vindication of their methods
>>
> So are you condemning our jury system?
>> ; but a "not guilty" verdict for
>> a policeman is a sign that the British legal process is immoral and
>> bankrupt.
>>
> The difference you are missing is that the police are supposed to be
> the guardians of the law and should be beyond reproach as well as
> answerable for their actions
> 
> What I find particularly interesting about this whole business is that
> juries seem to be pardoning an illegal act which is used to try to
> curb something which is harmful but legal.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.

You saying that reminded me of something.
You never did answer what was happening in the park in a previous thread.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  wrote:

> The difference you are missing is

There is no difference.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for
>> his mates is a vindication of their methods

> So are you condemning our jury system?

Your leaps of logic are worth of an Olympic gold.

<thinks>
Actually, no, since they emanate from your brain it'd be Paralympic.

Is the Not Guilty for some of the "liquid terror plot" accused the other 
day a "vindication of their methods", too?

>> but a "not guilty" verdict for a policeman is a sign that the British 
>> legal process is immoral and bankrupt.

> The difference you are missing is that the police are supposed to be the
> guardians of the law and should be beyond reproach as well as answerable
> for their actions

They are.

> What I find particularly interesting about this whole business is that
> juries seem to be pardoning an illegal act which is used to try to curb
> something which is harmful but legal.

No, all we _know_ is that they weren't found to be guilty _beyond 
reasonable doubt_.

On 11 Sep, 18:54, Doug  wrote:
> On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:> BrianW  wrote:
> > > Bzzzt - wrong. �The jury could have rejected the defence and still
> > > found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
> > > prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
> > > Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
>
> > It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
> > mates is a vindication of their methods
>
> So are you condemning our jury system?
>
> >; but a "not guilty" verdict for
> > a policeman is a sign that the British legal process is immoral and
> > bankrupt.
>
> The difference you are missing is that the police are supposed to be
> the guardians of the law and should be beyond reproach as well as
> answerable for their actions
>
> What I find particularly interesting about this whole business is that
> juries seem to be pardoning an illegal act which is used to try to
> curb something which is harmful but legal.

Have you read that case yet that I referred you to, Gollum?

On 11 Sep, 20:30, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for
> >> his mates is a vindication of their methods
> > So are you condemning our jury system?
>
> Your leaps of logic are worth of an Olympic gold.
>
Answer the question. You and others are as good as saying the jury was
wrong.
>
> <thinks>
> Actually, no, since they emanate from your brain it'd be Paralympic.
>
> Is the Not Guilty for some of the "liquid terror plot" accused the other
> day a "vindication of their methods", too?
>
So now you are condemning the innocent too? Are the motorist mob on
this newsgroup vigilantes? I wouldn't be at all surprised given their
attitude displayed in their posts, which is jsut about anti-everything
standing for human rights and civil liberties.
>
> >> but a "not guilty" verdict for a policeman is a sign that the British
> >> legal process is immoral and bankrupt.
> > The difference you are missing is that the police are supposed to be the
> > guardians of the law and should be beyond reproach as well as answerable
> > for their actions
>
> They are.
>
Not in some cases, like when they kill innocent people for example.
>
> > What I find particularly interesting about this whole business is that
> > juries seem to be pardoning an illegal act which is used to try to curb
> > something which is harmful but legal.
>
> No, all we _know_ is that they weren't found to be guilty _beyond
> reasonable doubt_.

Just like all the other not guilty people. So what? I bet if the jury
had found them guilty you would be applauding as a dedicated polluter.

Here is more evidence.

"The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were
justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired
power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have
shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown
Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage..."

More:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 12 Sep, 08:13, Doug  wrote:

> > >> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for
> > >> his mates is a vindication of their methods
> > > So are you condemning our jury system?
>
> > Your leaps of logic are worth of an Olympic gold.
>
> Answer the question. You and others are as good as saying the jury was
> wrong.

Er, no, nobody has made any criticism of the jury's verdict.  What
they have said is that there is no way of knowing *why* the jury found
the defendants not guilty.  It could either be because they did not
consider that the prosecution made out the case against them, or it
could be because they considered that, whilst the prosecution's case
was prima facie made out, the defendants had a good defence.

> Here is more evidence.
>
> "The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were
> justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired
> power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have
> shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown
> Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage..."

More evidence of what, Dung?  As we have explained, it is illegal to
ask a jury why they came to the verdict they did.  No amount of links
to sloppily written pieces by journalists who probably don't
understand the law either will change that.

In article <7b0124b2-58ae-478c-9306-2bec82ef06a3
@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > BrianW  wrote:
> > > Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
> > > found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
> > > prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
> > > Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
> >
> > It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
> > mates is a vindication of their methods
> >
> So are you condemning our jury system?

Yes. It is frequently shown as being flawed, especially in complex 
cases requiring specialist knowledge, but until a better alternative 
can be found, we have what we have.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Sep 12, 9:07 am, BrianW  wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 08:13, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > >> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for
> > > >> his mates is a vindication of their methods
> > > > So are you condemning our jury system?
>
> > > Your leaps of logic are worth of an Olympic gold.
>
> > Answer the question. You and others are as good as saying the jury was
> > wrong.
>
> Er, no, nobody has made any criticism of the jury's verdict.  What
> they have said is that there is no way of knowing *why* the jury found
> the defendants not guilty.  It could either be because they did not
> consider that the prosecution made out the case against them, or it
> could be because they considered that, whilst the prosecution's case
> was prima facie made out, the defendants had a good defence.
>

Doug can't understand that the Jury's job is not to decide if the
defendant is guilty or innocent.  Its the Jury's job to decide if the
prosecution has shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are
guilty.

Fod

On Sep 12, 10:48 am, Conor  wrote:
> In article <7b0124b2-58ae-478c-9306-2bec82ef06a3
> @m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> > On 11 Sep, 16:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > BrianW  wrote:
> > > > Bzzzt - wrong.  The jury could have rejected the defence and still
> > > > found the defendants not guilty, if they considered that the
> > > > prosecution had not made out the case against the defendants.
> > > > Innocent unless proven guilty, remember?
>
> > > It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for his
> > > mates is a vindication of their methods
>
> > So are you condemning our jury system?
>
> Yes. It is frequently shown as being flawed, especially in complex
> cases requiring specialist knowledge, but until a better alternative
> can be found, we have what we have.
>

You do realise Doug will now want to smash it and hope that something
better suddenly shows up to replace it.

Fod

On 12 Sep, 11:11, Fod  wrote:
> On Sep 12, 9:07 am, BrianW  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Sep, 08:13, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > > >> It's mildly amusing how Duhng thinks that a "not guilty" verdict for
> > > > >> his mates is a vindication of their methods
> > > > > So are you condemning our jury system?
>
> > > > Your leaps of logic are worth of an Olympic gold.
>
> > > Answer the question. You and others are as good as saying the jury was
> > > wrong.
>
> > Er, no, nobody has made any criticism of the jury's verdict.  What
> > they have said is that there is no way of knowing *why* the jury found
> > the defendants not guilty.  It could either be because they did not
> > consider that the prosecution made out the case against them, or it
> > could be because they considered that, whilst the prosecution's case
> > was prima facie made out, the defendants had a good defence.
>
> Doug can't understand that the Jury's job is not to decide if the
> defendant is guilty or innocent.  Its the Jury's job to decide if the
> prosecution has shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are
> guilty.

Indeedy doody.  He hasn't the slightest clue as to how the system
works, which is strange for someone who almost certainly has first-
hand experience of it.

My old