On 15 Aug, 13:13, Mark T <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
Quoted message said:
CoyoteBoy missed the point:
Quoted message said:
I wonder just how many cars/vans were driven to the climate camp to set all the stuff up.
Never had you down as an eco-freak.
I'm not, I just like to do my bit. I still take the fuel guzzling monster out at weekends just for the hell of it, I just try to offset it somewhat by riding to work whenever possible. I just find the hipocrisy of real eco freaks turning up in a bunch of smoke brewing machines rather annoying, especially when they tell me I cant drive my parents 4x4 despite it being only as bad as a medium sized reps car (its used for towing but you dont leave a car doing nothing 90% of the time do you) . I find it amusing that they dont have a go at me for driving a 17mpg modified sports car, yet they hurl abuse at the jag in front that gets 30mpg.
What concerns me is their hipocrisy and their lack of basic knowledge of that that they are fighting, it just discredits their cause. I'm all for making everything greener, though I wont disadvantage myself or stop having all fun just because of it.
I wonder if anyone has taken this petition to the climate camp yet?
Is that a wind turbine the protestors have about 4/5 of the way into the video clip?
Haven't seen the clip - but I did have a quick mooch around the site on Monday evening (having pedalled my way there after work). I had a brief chat with the rather proud but worried owner of the turbine. It was rated, he said,at 500watts at, I think ,12mph wind. He was proud in that it was a home construction job (he wound the copper coils and set them in epoxy resin) but worried as it hadn't been exposed to a decent blow before and the forecast for Tuesday was a bit strong. He was also having to brake the turbine when I was there as everyone was arriving with fully charged lead-acid batteries and there was nowhere for his 500watts to go to then. No doubt it'll get more use as the week goes on......
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:39:33 -0000 someone who may be Pete <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
But the judgment on what needs to be policed is seriously off balance. I mean families on a field making a peaceful point about where they think BAA are going wrong is probably not a priority threat.
Typical Indymedia fodder. It conveniently cuts out the run up to the incident as it'd no doubt have the slight problem of showing the enviroloonies prompting the action. What it does show is an out of control MOB ignoring orders of police officers.
I notice there's several assaults on the Police as well as well as obstruction which BTW they take no action against even though both are arrestable offences.
If you're going to show videos supporting your argument, at least make sure they're not self incriminating.
-- Conor
The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.
On 15 Aug, 18:04, "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname
here.uk.com said:
"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
nightjar' nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com said:
Absolutely. There should be a way to charge the people at the camp for the extra money they have caused to be spent on policing. [...]
Quoted message said:
It's not the campers who have caused the money to be spent on policing.
If they were not there, there would be no need for extra Police, so there is no question that they are the ones responsible.
Colin Bignell
Why the need for extra policing? What could they possibly do to harm others standing on a field? Also, how are these extra costs calculated? Surely the cops get paid anyway.
Is that a wind turbine the protestors have about 4/5 of the way into the video clip?
Haven't seen the clip - but I did have a quick mooch around the site on Monday evening (having pedalled my way there after work). I had a brief chat with the rather proud but worried owner of the turbine. It was rated, he said,at 500watts at, I think ,12mph wind. He was proud in that it was a home construction job (he wound the copper coils and set them in epoxy resin) but worried as it hadn't been exposed to a decent blow before and the forecast for Tuesday was a bit strong. He was also having to brake the turbine when I was there as everyone was arriving with fully charged lead-acid batteries and there was nowhere for his 500watts to go to then. No doubt it'll get more use as the week goes on......
Wow! That's impressive, and great organisation to get it there. No doubt the owner will face prosecution for an unauthorised erection. ;-)
Is that a wind turbine the protestors have about 4/5 of the way into the video clip?
Quoted message said:
Haven't seen the clip - but I did have a quick mooch around the site on Monday evening (having pedalled my way there after work). I had a brief chat with the rather proud but worried owner of the turbine. It was rated, he said,at 500watts at, I think ,12mph wind. He was proud in that it was a home construction job (he wound the copper coils and set them in epoxy resin) but worried as it hadn't been exposed to a decent blow before and the forecast for Tuesday was a bit strong. He was also having to brake the turbine when I was there as everyone was arriving with fully charged lead-acid batteries and there was nowhere for his 500watts to go to then. No doubt it'll get more use as the week goes on......
Wow! That's impressive, and great organisation to get it there. No doubt the owner will face prosecution for an unauthorised erection. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
<[email hidden]> wrote: > People can see what appears to be a deliberate attempt by the police > to provoke trouble by downloading the video from > http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378267.html Is that a wind turbine the protestors have about 4/5 of the way into the video clip?
Haven't seen the clip - but I did have a quick mooch around the site on Monday evening (having pedalled my way there after work). I had a brief chat with the rather proud but worried owner of the turbine. It was rated, he said,at 500watts at, I think ,12mph wind. He was proud in that it was a home construction job (he wound the copper coils and set them in epoxy resin) but worried as it hadn't been exposed to a decent blow before and the forecast for Tuesday was a bit strong. He was also having to brake the turbine when I was there as everyone was arriving with fully charged lead-acid batteries and there was nowhere for his 500watts to go to then. No doubt it'll get more use as the week goes on......
Wow! That's impressive, and great organisation to get it there. No doubt the owner will face prosecution for an unauthorised erection. ;-)
Simple, taxing the hell out of airlines and more stringent environmental laws that distribute this revenue into improving public transport to make it a hell of a lot more attractive to go "green".
That's a fine spewing-out of words.
What does it mean?
And how do you recommend that travel over a distance of (say) 1,000 miles is made more "green"?
On 15 Aug, 18:04, "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname
here.uk.com said:
"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname here>.uk.com> wrote: > Absolutely. There should be a way to charge the people at the camp for > the > extra money they have caused to be spent on policing. [...]
Quoted message said:
It's not the campers who have caused the money to be spent on policing.
If they were not there, there would be no need for extra Police, so there is no question that they are the ones responsible.
Colin Bignell
Why the need for extra policing?
The protestors have threatened that they're going to be taking direct action later this week.
-- Conor
The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.
"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 15 Aug, 18:04, "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname
here.uk.com said:
"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname here>.uk.com> wrote: > Absolutely. There should be a way to charge the people at the camp for > the > extra money they have caused to be spent on policing. [...]
Quoted message said:
It's not the campers who have caused the money to be spent on policing.
If they were not there, there would be no need for extra Police, so there is no question that they are the ones responsible.
Colin Bignell
Why the need for extra policing? What could they possibly do to harm others standing on a field?
That is not what they have said they are planning to do.
Quoted message said:
Also, how are these extra costs calculated? Surely the cops get paid anyway.
There is a limited supply of officers, so extra duties nearly always involve overtime, plus accommodation for officers brought in from other areas.
How could you possibly be disadvantaged by not driving this car "just for the hell of it"? This is exactly the attitude that pisses people off who really care about what happens in 25 or 50 years time. You can't say you support a greener way of life and then refuse to compromise without being called rediculous bigot.
Youre putting 2 and 2 together to make 5. What I said was I wont be disadvantaged - i.e. I wont resist taking a job simply because it would mean using a car instead of the train/bike. I wont stop driving to do my sports in the sea - the sport simply cannot be accessed without a car and since it is the only sport I actually enjoy, I do not smoke or drink, or spend money on anything else I feel somewhat justified. I try to limit my damage by riding/train"ing" as often as possible, but when I want to do something using the car I know I've usually offset the damage I do by far the rest of the time. I might take my car out and drive pointlessly for 30 miles just for fun, but I've made the effort NOT to drive for 210 iles a week by commuting on bike. This is more offsetting than 90% of the greenies who claim to be super green by cycling 3 miles to work a day and not owning a car. I wont be forced to stop doing the only sport I love just because some lazy lame [censored] sat in a pub thinks my method of getting to it is bad. Even when I factor in my gas guzzling car I still come out 50% down on the average CO2 production due to the energy saving I do at home and my cycle commuting, according to all the sites.
You can fall into 3 catagories: 1) Greenie - dont do anything that is remotely harmful and sit on your pedestal. 2) Try to limit your damage while still enjoying life and travel freedom. 3) Those who just dont care.
I happily fall into 2 and have no qualms about it. If you fall into catagory 1 then you have the right to shout about people doing ANY damage - good for you, it doesnt suit me. If you fall into 2 in ANY way you have no right to comment as there is no line drawn as to what is acceptable or not.
"CoyoteBoy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Youre putting 2 and 2 together to make 5. What I said was I wont be disadvantaged - i.e. I wont resist taking a job simply because it would mean using a car instead of the train/bike.
I would - I wouldn't take a job which involved a car commute. Not for any green reasons though - utility car driving like that is a waste of my time.
Quoted message said:
I might take my car out and drive pointlessly for 30 miles just for fun, but I've made the effort NOT to drive for 210 iles a week by commuting on bike.
Your commute is 21 miles each way?
Quoted message said:
This is more offsetting than 90% of the greenies who claim to be super green by cycling 3 miles to work a day and not owning a car.
Now that statement makes no sense. Neither of you are car commuting, so both get equal green points for that. You don't get any extra for not car commuting a greater distance. Your use of the car for leisure stands alone - just because you don't use it for commuting doesn't make it any better to use it for leisure.
This is more offsetting than 90% of the greenies who claim to be super green by cycling 3 miles to work a day and not owning a car.
Now that statement makes no sense. Neither of you are car commuting, so both get equal green points for that. You don't get any extra for not car commuting a greater distance. Your use of the car for leisure stands alone - just because you don't use it for commuting doesn't make it any better to use it for leisure.
Some time ago, I decided to not go on a foreign holiday every year so as to cut down on air travel.
But now I've decided to not go on foreign holidays 4 times a year :-)
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Clive George said:
Quoted message said:
This is more offsetting than 90% of the greenies who claim to be super green by cycling 3 miles to work a day and not owning a car.
Now that statement makes no sense. Neither of you are car commuting, so both get equal green points for that. You don't get any extra for not car commuting a greater distance. Your use of the car for leisure stands alone - just because you don't use it for commuting doesn't make it any better to use it for leisure.
Some time ago, I decided to not go on a foreign holiday every year so as to cut down on air travel.
But now I've decided to not go on foreign holidays 4 times a year :-)
Unfortunately since the demise of Concorde you've lost the opportunity to not go on holiday at supersonic speeds too :-)
On Aug 16, 10:22 am, "Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> This is more offsetting than 90% of the greenies who claim to be > super green by cycling 3 miles to work a day and not owning a car.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Now that statement makes no sense. Neither of you are car commuting, so both get equal green points for that. You don't get any extra for not car commuting a greater distance. Your use of the car for leisure stands alone - just because you don't use it for commuting doesn't make it any better to use it for leisure.
Quoted message said:
Some time ago, I decided to not go on a foreign holiday every year so as to cut down on air travel.
Quoted message said:
But now I've decided to not go on foreign holidays 4 times a year :-)
Unfortunately since the demise of Concorde you've lost the opportunity to not go on holiday at supersonic speeds too :-)
But on the plus side, I can abjure all space tourism!
"Brimstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname here>.uk.com> wrote: > Absolutely. There should be a way to charge the people at the camp > for the > extra money they have caused to be spent on policing. [...]
It's not the campers who have caused the money to be spent on policing.
If they were not there, there would be no need for extra Police, so there is no question that they are the ones responsible.
Sadly that's the attitude one would expect from a brainwashed sheep.
The only brainwashed sheep around are the ones sitting in a field, ruminating, in the mistaken belief that it is possible to do anything about climate change besides slow its onset very marginally and that it is a simple enough mechanism to do so by changing a single factor on which scientists cannot agree whether it is cause or effect.
"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Brimstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname here>.uk.com> wrote: >> Absolutely. There should be a way to charge the people at the camp >> for the >> extra money they have caused to be spent on policing. [...] > > It's not the campers who have caused the money to be spent on > policing.
If they were not there, there would be no need for extra Police, so there is no question that they are the ones responsible.
Sadly that's the attitude one would expect from a brainwashed sheep.
The only brainwashed sheep around are the ones sitting in a field, ruminating, in the mistaken belief that it is possible to do anything about climate change besides slow its onset very marginally and that it is a simple enough mechanism to do so by changing a single factor on which scientists cannot agree whether it is cause or effect.
Quite obviously you don't understand the concept of brainwashed sheep.
