Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Climate change denial is dead – but the fight for green votes

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited January 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Climate change denial is dead – but the fight for green votes is starting

Donald Trump’s tweet that the snow-blasted US east coast would benefit from some global warming has reignited attention to his climate-change denial. But after a year of his presidency, it’s increasingly clear that, in terms of both public opinion and policy, rejection of climate science is a sideshow.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,547
    What has happened here, of course, is that Donald Trump has given climate change denying a bad name
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Second like England’s cricket team. Again.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    Sandpit said:

    Second like England’s cricket team. Again.

    I'm not sure they're that close.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,547

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    What we need, of course, is a Tory leader who does things like going to the Arctic and is pictured with huskies.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    What we need, of course, is a Tory leader who does things like going to the Arctic and is pictured with huskies.
    Gestures rather than solid actions?

    You deserve to be in opposition
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,965

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like England’s cricket team. Again.

    I'm not sure they're that close.
    Quite. To win a cricket match a team needs to take 20 wickets. We’ve only once come close to that for the whole series, and was in the day/night match.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,947
    tlg86 said:

    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?

    That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like England’s cricket team. Again.

    I'm not sure they're that close.
    Quite. To win a cricket match a team needs to take 20 wickets. We’ve only once come close to that for the whole series, and was in the day/night match.
    And we don’t look like doing that this time, either. Two positives; Curran seems to have batted reasonably well and Crane seems to have been as economical as anyone, and perhaps better than feared.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
    The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?

    The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
    Yes, the LDs made an important contribution. It was still achieved under Tory premierships.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like England’s cricket team. Again.

    I'm not sure they're that close.
    Quite. To win a cricket match a team needs to take 20 wickets. We’ve only once come close to that for the whole series, and was in the day/night match.
    This is the key to the failure. It is much more significant than the batting. Our attack is simply not threatening on these wickets in these conditions. It means a draw is the best we can hope for. I don't think in this case we scored enough for a draw.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    15, like the maximum number of wickets England's bowlers can take in an away Test.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?

    That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.
    Of course in practice these things are much more difficult than in theory. No-one likes price rises or new taxes.

    Better for government to provide tax breaks for innovation and R&D in energy saving technologies, much easier politically and will most likely still produce the desired result in the end.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    DavidL said:

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
    The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?

    The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?

    That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.

    So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like England’s cricket team. Again.

    I'm not sure they're that close.
    Quite. To win a cricket match a team needs to take 20 wickets. We’ve only once come close to that for the whole series, and was in the day/night match.
    This is the key to the failure. It is much more significant than the batting. Our attack is simply not threatening on these wickets in these conditions. It means a draw is the best we can hope for. I don't think in this case we scored enough for a draw.
    Absolutely, we could have a world class batting lineup but if we can’t get them out twice we’re not going to win a match. I fear that today we were at least a hundred runs short of what might be defendable, short of an Aussie collapse tomorrow they’re looking at over 500 on this pitch and against our bowlers. Hope I’m wrong though!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    edited January 5
    20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.

    More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.

    At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.

    They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.

    And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    The charge of 25p per cup for a takeaway latte is too high: for a £2.50 drink, that could represent a 10% increase in its cost; for a £1.50 filter coffee around 16-17%. It's effectively a hot drink tax.

    And what's the alternative? People bring in their own refillable mugs to fill? (which would have hygiene issues) Or for shops to provide different sorts of paper cups? Or to drink coffee on-site in their own re-washable mugs? Or do we really want them to drink less coffee?

    The 5p per plastic bag charge works because (a) its accepted, as it represents a very low % of the price of a shop, (b) it makes people think about just how many bags they use, because there is a nominal cost, and, (c) there is an alternative - bring in your own bags. So it's seen as fair. And its worked.

    I remain to be convinced any of these apply to takeaway coffee cups. It doesn't pass the smell test.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
    The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?

    The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
    I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    edited January 5
    ydoethur said:

    20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.

    More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.

    At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.

    They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.

    And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.

    I think that future generations will look with incredulity at the idea that chemicals as useful as oil were simply burnt to provide energy but I suspect the policies already in place (specifically the move to electrical vehicles) will mean that oil lasts far longer than you seem to be anticipating.

    Edit. Don't disagree about Vince. Elegant but fragile, he is not fit for purpose.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584
    edited January 5
    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Good morning, everyone.

    In electoral terms, I agree with Mr. Barasi's perspective. Personally, I don't, and terms like 'denier', which have mostly been used about those attempting to pretend the Holocaust never happened, does nothing to persuade me to join the ranks of those either nagged into submission or genuinely converted to the zealous ranks of true believers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,538

    The charge of 25p per cup for a takeaway latte is too high: for a £2.50 drink, that could represent a 10% increase in its cost; for a £1.50 filter coffee around 16-17%. It's effectively a hot drink tax.

    And what's the alternative? People bring in their own refillable mugs to fill? (which would have hygiene issues) Or for shops to provide different sorts of paper cups? Or to drink coffee on-site in their own re-washable mugs? Or do we really want them to drink less coffee?

    The 5p per plastic bag charge works because (a) its accepted, as it represents a very low % of the price of a shop, (b) it makes people think about just how many bags they use, because there is a nominal cost, and, (c) there is an alternative - bring in your own bags. So it's seen as fair. And its worked.

    I remain to be convinced any of these apply to takeaway coffee cups. It doesn't pass the smell test.

    At Indian railway stations they used to sell tea in one-use baked clay, terracotta cups which you could with a clear conscience throw out of the window after use.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?

    That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.
    Of course in practice these things are much more difficult than in theory. No-one likes price rises or new taxes.

    Better for government to provide tax breaks for innovation and R&D in energy saving technologies, much easier politically and will most likely still produce the desired result in the end.
    The plastic bag charge was both well-accepted and effective (I gather use has dropped by 80% or more). Generally people will I think accept something costing less than a quid more if it's seen as a good cause - free-range eggs (a few pence more than battery eggs) captured most of the supermarket sales in the same way.

    Air passenger duty is a lot more and is I'd assume unpopular, but also largely accepted despite the best efforts of airlines like Ryanair to whip up indignation. I've never met a voter who mentioned it on the doorstep.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    Thanks for a very interesting article.

    A major reason for this change is that there's very big money to be had in being green, especially in the energy sector. Money somewhat helps to concentrate minds on many levels.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. L, indeed, it's an alarmingly sensible policy to have subsidies linked to things like helping flood prevention.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 124
    This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
    Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    One thing Cameron did too was to get the Tories talking about climate change. While Trump is sceptical about climate change not all have been, Bush Snr signed the Rio Accord for example in 1992
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,038
    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,552
    Total delusional nonsense from start to finish. Output from the sun declining at the fastest rate in 10000 years. Record child and snow records smashed in the recent cold USA spell..........smell the coffee.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
    The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?

    The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
    I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.
    I think the Conservatives are pretty much in line with the average voter on environmental issues.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,364
    Metatron said:

    This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
    Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.

    Even if these “probability theorists” (whatever that means) are right (which would go against the overwhelming scientific consensus), cutting pollution, reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables are still overwhelmingly sensible ideas.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.

    More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.

    At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.

    They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.

    And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.

    I think that future generations will look with incredulity at the idea that chemicals as useful as oil were simply burnt to provide energy but I suspect the policies already in place (specifically the move to electrical vehicles) will mean that oil lasts far longer than you seem to be anticipating.

    Edit. Don't disagree about Vince. Elegant but fragile, he is not fit for purpose.
    Oil and petrol have been immensely beneficial. Without them, we would have destroyed the world's forests for fuel, and would be burning much more coal.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,947
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?

    That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.

    So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?
    I am not sure what you mean.

    I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.

    Personally I cannot understand the fad of bottled water, or drinking coffee from a plasticised cup. As as far as possible I avoid both, on cost grounds as well as environmental. I do enjoy flying abroad though, but we all have our hypocrisies. Single use medical equipment is a bit of a nightmare too, no reuseable forceps and scissors any more, but cannot fight city hall.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,181
    Foxy said:

    I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.

    Apparently, scientists in Antarctica use paper plates and burn them. Less wasteful than heating water to wash them.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085

    Metatron said:

    This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
    Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.

    Even if these “probability theorists” (whatever that means) are right (which would go against the overwhelming scientific consensus), cutting pollution, reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables are still overwhelmingly sensible ideas.
    Indeed. Regardless of the effect on the environment, renewable energy jsut makes more sense in pretty much every regard (when/if the technology etc etc).
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,538

    Metatron said:

    This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.
    Govt`s policies and the Paris agreement are all still based on reducing `man made global warming`There are probability theorists though who believe a mini-ice age is more likely than global warming and if they are right the current global govt green policies will look idiotic excluding Trump`s.

    Even if these “probability theorists” (whatever that means) are right (which would go against the overwhelming scientific consensus), cutting pollution, reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables are still overwhelmingly sensible ideas.
    It means mathematicians who theorise about probability. And you can either say "overwhelming scientific consensus", or you can claim to know how science works, but not both. And some aspects of reducing reliance on fossils fuels and switching to renewables have been an unmitigated disaster; see under "biofuel".
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,342
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
    The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?

    The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
    I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.
    I think the Conservatives are pretty much in line with the average voter on environmental issues.
    Yes so do I .The conservatives seem reasonably concerned over these issues
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,947
    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?

    That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.
    Of course in practice these things are much more difficult than in theory. No-one likes price rises or new taxes.

    Better for government to provide tax breaks for innovation and R&D in energy saving technologies, much easier politically and will most likely still produce the desired result in the end.
    The plastic bag charge was both well-accepted and effective (I gather use has dropped by 80% or more). Generally people will I think accept something costing less than a quid more if it's seen as a good cause - free-range eggs (a few pence more than battery eggs) captured most of the supermarket sales in the same way.

    Air passenger duty is a lot more and is I'd assume unpopular, but also largely accepted despite the best efforts of airlines like Ryanair to whip up indignation. I've never met a voter who mentioned it on the doorstep.
    5p is also pretty trival amount, and as most people just tap/scan and pay with cards these days it's not even mentally noted. So, yep it's been a good policy.

    There's a fine line between a good policy like this, and a bad one though. if it had been say 50p per bag, then a lot more people would have been attacking it. So it has to be pitched and costed carefully.

    Also there's practical issues. It's easy to carry an empty bag down the shops or have one knocking in the boot of the car. Thats different from cups for coffee.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ???? ;)
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,552
    Never mind that the AGW narrative runs contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Never mind that not one of the AGW predictions has come true. Now that we're rapidly descending into the 2024 grand solar minimum, we'll soon see that piers corbyn has been right with his solar lunar action technique all along. .....with devastating consequence for the AGW brigade.
  • Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.

    Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,809
    edited January 5
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    I'm going to defend Mrs May like I always do.

    She's wasn't responsible for setting the rules.

    That was the responsibility of the Justice Secretary.

    Judging by The Telegraph article, it might be the fault of Michael Gove*.

    there are fears that Worboys was released as part of a drive, launched by the Government in 2016, to give prisoners serving indefinite sentences the chance of release.

    *Or Liz Truss, but my money is on Gove.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/26/michael-gove-tells-tory-mp-his-christianity-informs-prison-policy-i-believe-in-redemption_n_9076940.html
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,945
    ydoethur said:

    20, like the highest James Vince's Test average will ever be.

    More seriously and on topic, I would be more interested in the approach of Green politicians if they had practical ideas for replacing current wasteful and polluting practices (e.g. Fossil fuels and overuse of plastics) with different equivalents.

    At the moment while the hot air they provide properly harnessed could go some way towards meeting our energy needs, they tend to have an almost Puritanical desire to just cut everything so we slow the damage rather than solve the problem.

    They also do so with an irritating holier-than-thou patronising attitude which would be more bearable if a lot of them were not so narrow-minded and ignorant.

    And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.

    It doesn't help when our neighbour (RoI) has two highly polluting, inefficient power stations, kept on for purely political reasons!

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0513/700793-bord-na-mona/
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    Morning all :)

    This, rather like housing, is a multi-layered issue with a number of occasionally contradictory facets and possible solutions.

    First, there's climate and there's the weather. Yes, it can be a bit colder than "normal" or a bit hotter than "normal" over a 10-20 year period but in geological terms, that's a blip. I'm inclined to the view that "something is happening" and it's happening in some regions very quickly and too quickly for it to be entirely natural. The uncomfortable truth is a lot of the world's population live in cities by the sea so sea-level rise causes problems for millions straight away while the permafrost melt in Alaska and northern Siberia appears less of an issue because there are fewer people involved.

    Second, even if the deniers are right and there's nothing unusual happening it makes a lot of sense to use the finite natural resources of the planet more carefully and sensibly.

    Third, we've treated the planet like a child treats his or her room and caused a mess. I've seen the pictures of the sea choked with our rubbish and I'm ashamed - closer to home, the post Christmas fly tipping clear up round East Ham is underway.

    According to the song "in the avenues and alleyways where the soul of a man is easy to buy" - well, round East Ham it would be "in the avenues and alleyways where the mattress of a man is easy to dump". It angers me we still have a culture where individuals think dumping their rubbish on someone else's street is okay. The worst are the small builders and contractors who instead of paying to use the perfectly good civic amenity sites think dumping it elsewhere and getting someone else to clear it away is a good thing.

    If you want an example of where capitalism needs to do better in environmental terms that's it - take some Thatcherite personal responsibility for your rubbish so to speak and that extends to how we eat and cook and preventing the fat-bergs which block our sewers.

    People don't like being told how to live their lives but recycling is one of those instances where the messages are getting through - most people do it, they may not always do it right but they do try.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    ydoethur said:

    And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.

    Oil has been "running out" for as long as I remember. I don't think it will ever run out because we're already well in the process of replacing oil eg with electric cars well before it runs out.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Hunchman, disagree.

    If temperatures decline then I suspect some will claim it's a success of their policy drive. If temperatures rise they'll cite it as evidence of their perspective.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    I'm not so much outraged at the offences he's committed, as worried about the offences that he will commit.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,580
    edited January 5
    Metatron said:

    This article is misleading.What climate sceptics are sceptical about is man made global warming .Greens began changing the used word from `global warming` to `climate change` when the data was not backing the predictions of how fast global warming was going to happen made in the 1990`s.

    No, they changed the name because twunts kept going every winter "hurf durf so much for global warming" and that was bloody tedious.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, this Government has quite a good record on climate change. It's halved carbon emissions in electricity generation since 2012:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42495883

    That includes the coalition period when the main environment ministers were Lib Dem. Who did the Tories choose as an environment secretary in 2012? Climate change sceptic Owen Paterson.
    Is May any better?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
    The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?

    The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
    I think Leo has a point that there is a more general effect, particularly with younger voters. If the Tories were adopting a Trump like denial approach I suspect this would motivate the young and some not so young to vote for someone else. The point I was seeking to make is that they are not and that rather defuses the argument.
    I think the Conservatives are pretty much in line with the average voter on environmental issues.
    Yes so do I .The conservatives seem reasonably concerned over these issues
    I think that Conservatives do care more about the environment than they often get credit for, the difference being that they don’t think the solution to every problem is more taxes or punitive government intervention.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,580
    hunchman said:

    Never mind that the AGW narrative runs contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Please tell me how it breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    This, rather like housing, is a multi-layered issue with a number of occasionally contradictory facets and possible solutions.

    First, there's climate and there's the weather. Yes, it can be a bit colder than "normal" or a bit hotter than "normal" over a 10-20 year period but in geological terms, that's a blip. I'm inclined to the view that "something is happening" and it's happening in some regions very quickly and too quickly for it to be entirely natural. The uncomfortable truth is a lot of the world's population live in cities by the sea so sea-level rise causes problems for millions straight away while the permafrost melt in Alaska and northern Siberia appears less of an issue because there are fewer people involved.

    Second, even if the deniers are right and there's nothing unusual happening it makes a lot of sense to use the finite natural resources of the planet more carefully and sensibly.

    Third, we've treated the planet like a child treats his or her room and caused a mess. I've seen the pictures of the sea choked with our rubbish and I'm ashamed - closer to home, the post Christmas fly tipping clear up round East Ham is underway.

    According to the song "in the avenues and alleyways where the soul of a man is easy to buy" - well, round East Ham it would be "in the avenues and alleyways where the mattress of a man is easy to dump". It angers me we still have a culture where individuals think dumping their rubbish on someone else's street is okay. The worst are the small builders and contractors who instead of paying to use the perfectly good civic amenity sites think dumping it elsewhere and getting someone else to clear it away is a good thing.

    If you want an example of where capitalism needs to do better in environmental terms that's it - take some Thatcherite personal responsibility for your rubbish so to speak and that extends to how we eat and cook and preventing the fat-bergs which block our sewers.

    People don't like being told how to live their lives but recycling is one of those instances where the messages are getting through - most people do it, they may not always do it right but they do try.

    What I've always found odd is the number of contractors who think they're entitled to walk off with one's tools, or the surplus building materials that one has paid for.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.
    There are some people who should never be let out of prison, such as Ian Beggs, the Limbs in the Loch murderer, who will be eligible for parole next year.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    edited January 5
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.
    There are some people who should never be let out of prison, such as Ian Beggs, the Limbs in the Loch murderer, who will be eligible for parole next year.
    Why wasn't he given a whole life tariff?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
    What does that mean?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,342
    The fracking argument is quite big news near me in Kirby Mispertton North Yorkshire .It is a very conservative area. I do not know enough about it to make any judgement .Some of the locals are concerned ,do not know if this is just because it is in their area , or a general worry.Also a lot of people are coming from afar to protest everyday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41864886
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.
    There are some people who should never be let out of prison, such as Ian Beggs, the Limbs in the Loch murderer, who will be eligible for parole next year.
    Why wasn't he given a whole life tariff?
    The Judge gave a minimum term of 20 years, reduced to 18 on appeal, which is a high tariff for murder. But, this is a man who buggered his victim to death, before dismembering his body. He also tried to murder another man in 1991, but was released early because he was a model prisoner. His first murder was in 1987, but that can't be taken into account, because his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, due to prejudicial evidence (of other assaults) being introduced at his trial. These days, that evidence would probably be allowed as similar fact evidence.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    As a matter of interest, what caused the last four ice ages and the subsequent warming?

    I don't claim to be an expert, but surely that's well-documented by now.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326
    edited January 5
    I am not a fan of the proliferation of coffee shops. The takeaway tea is usually grim, and the cups are an environmental disaster.

    I would support taxes on all environmentally-unfriendly disposable packaging. We have a duty of care to those that come after us, and much like with chewing gum, much of the costs of our current behaviours are not captured in the price we pay in the shop. Capturing those costs through the tax system is a perfectly legitimate and proper role for government.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ???? ;)
    It's so hard to remember who Labour's Home Secretaries were, they changed them so often.....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,809
    edited January 5
    Huge gaffe by Angela Rayner.

    Labour's spending plans are a 'bit of a s*** or bust strategy', shadow minister says

    A Labour MP's colourful way of calling for more investment is seized on by Tories, who accuse the party of economic recklessness.

    https://news.sky.com/story/labours-spending-plans-are-a-bit-of-a-s-or-bust-strategy-shadow-minister-says-11195726

    Surely she meant to say Labour's policy would be a 'shit and bust' strategy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Eagles, be fair. She's half right.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    Huge gaffe by Angela Rayner.

    Labour's spending plans are a 'bit of a s*** or bust strategy', shadow minister says

    A Labour MP's colourful way of calling for more investment is seized on by Tories, who accuse the party of economic recklessness.

    https://news.sky.com/story/labours-spending-plans-are-a-bit-of-a-s-or-bust-strategy-shadow-minister-says-11195726

    Surely she meant to say Labour's policy would be a 'shit and bust' strategy.

    And surely she didn't mean to say "a bit of"....?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,502

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ???? ;)
    It's so hard to remember who Labour's Home Secretaries were, they changed them so often.....
    Starmer looking very uncomfortable in his interview with Sky as to why he didnt prosecute more cases
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    He was convicted in 2009....not sure May was around then ???? ;)
    It's so hard to remember who Labour's Home Secretaries were, they changed them so often.....
    Well we at least know who the DPP was....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.

    Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
    What does that mean?
    IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?

    That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.

    So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?
    I am not sure what you mean.

    I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.

    Personally I cannot understand the fad of bottled water, or drinking coffee from a plasticised cup. As as far as possible I avoid both, on cost grounds as well as environmental. I do enjoy flying abroad though, but we all have our hypocrisies. Single use medical equipment is a bit of a nightmare too, no reuseable forceps and scissors any more, but cannot fight city hall.
    If someone needs to pay 25p for a paper cup then they are not able to get free water from a coffee shop. But coffee shops have a legal requirement to provide it on demand.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,145
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.

    Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?
    I don't know much about the system, but surely a parole border has to consider whether someone remains a risk to the public?
  • jayfdeejayfdee Posts: 505
    Yorkcity said:

    The fracking argument is quite big news near me in Kirby Mispertton North Yorkshire .It is a very conservative area. I do not know enough about it to make any judgement .Some of the locals are concerned ,do not know if this is just because it is in their area , or a general worry.Also a lot of people are coming from afar to protest everyday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41864886

    Not sure whether I would be more concerned about the Fracking, or the invasion of protestors.
    The Frackers have a long hard road ahead of them. I introduced a controversial energy process to the UK and it took 10 years or more before the protests died away. I had death threats, and was accused of causing asthma and cancer etc.
    The process is now established and has saved many millions of tons of fossil fuel.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    RoyalBlue said:

    I am not a fan of the proliferation of coffee shops. The takeaway tea is usually grim, and the cups are an environmental disaster.

    I would support taxes on all environmentally-unfriendly disposable packaging. We have a duty of care to those that come after us, and much like with chewing gum, much of the costs of our current behaviours are not captured in the price we pay in the shop. Capturing those costs through the tax system is a perfectly legitimate and proper role for government.

    Whilst I agree there are too many of them what else do we do with our High Streets when people buy so much online?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
    What does that mean?
    IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
    How will that apply to grouse-moor owners?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.

    Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?
    I don't know much about the system, but surely a parole border has to consider whether someone remains a risk to the public?
    Definitely. And some suitably qualified expert has reported that he has attended classes in prison where he had reflected on his offending and shown awareness of the consequences to his victims and, critically, is no longer a threat. A brave man indeed that put his pen to that report.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited January 5

    ydoethur said:

    And far too few seem really interested in the most pressing problem of all with our current lifestyle- how very short we are running of the resources to sustain it. With or without global warming we will be running out of oil probably within the lifetime of people now alive.

    Oil has been "running out" for as long as I remember. I don't think it will ever run out because we're already well in the process of replacing oil eg with electric cars well before it runs out.
    What a stupid and enormously complacent comment. Oil is a finite fossil resource so of course it is eventually going to run out, at least the percentage of it which is possible/economical to extract.

    Electric cars and renewables won't "replace oil". A lot of the extra energy powering these electric cars worldwide is going to have to come from fossil sources, from power stations which are less efficient than internal combustion engines. And vast quantities of oil will still be needed for manufacturing plastics and other industrial processes. What will power the mining machinery to mine the silicon used in solar panels and windmills? Or the vast quantities of cobalt, lithium, vanadium etc used in highly polluting processes to create the heavy duty batteries necessary to store renewable energy? Most likely it will be oil. What will be used to smelt the silicon, the steel, vanadium, cobalt, lithium....mostly coal.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
    What does that mean?
    IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
    Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
    What does that mean?
    IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
    How will that apply to grouse-moor owners?
    No idea but in Scotland there is pretty much free access to the moors and hills already. Areas can be and are blocked off when a shoot is actually going on of course.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,750

    Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.

    Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.

    “ ... When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug ...”

    Honestly, what is the contribution to global warming by going out on the road, as compared to the saving by taking your own up cup?

    In global warming, the numbers are so big that if we all do a little, then it just adds up to a little. Nothing is going to change if everyone takes their own cup.

    Far better to assess whether all these journeys out on the road are actually necessary.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370
    Thank you Leo for this thread. For a greeny-red like me it is nice to see this topic getting an airing o PB. Naturally, some of our resident climate change deniers have crawled out of the woodwork to spout the usual nonsense. I won't be engaging, as I know it is futile.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938


    Well we at least know who the DPP was....

    I thought the DPP reported to the Attorney General not the Home Secretary.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
    What does that mean?
    IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
    Hmm - sounds a bit theme park-ish. One man's enhancement is another's...

    I don't think farming is particularly broken atm, with the obvious exception of the price British consumers are willing to pay for eg. in particular milk and other farmed products. Take away subsidies which allow lower prices for you and me to buy milk at Tescos and prices will rise.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:



    I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.

    Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.

    I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.

    It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
    Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
    What does that mean?
    IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
    Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
    I think the difference is that the real money that used to be paid to farmers under the CAP will be diverted to support such schemes but I agree even the CAP had made gestures in this direction.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 743
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.

    Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?
    Presumably due to the evidential problem of proving sexual assault to the criminal standard, when the sedated victims were unable to precisely recall what took place.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370

    Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.

    Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.

    “ ... When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug ...”

    Honestly, what is the contribution to global warming by going out on the road, as compared to the saving by taking your own up cup?

    In global warming, the numbers are so big that if we all do a little, then it just adds up to a little. Nothing is going to change if everyone takes their own cup.

    Far better to assess whether all these journeys out on the road are actually necessary.
    I know - only introduce the 25p charge at coffee shops at motorway service stations or that are drive-throughs, and not at those located on railway stations.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Gadfly said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.

    Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?
    Presumably due to the evidential problem of proving sexual assault to the criminal standard, when the sedated victims were unable to precisely recall what took place.
    There was a clear pattern of conduct which would allow the Moorov doctrine to be applied. In those circumstances women saying he had picked them up, offered them champagne, found themselves at home and suffered injuries consistent with a sexual assault would be ample. The media are quite happy to report that he was guilty of 100 rapes. Presumably there is some basis for that statement.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,192
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.

    What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.

    Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Miss Cyclefree, in Castle Morris Dancer, coffee is black or white. The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.
  • Coffee is for wimps.

    Pineapple juice or apple juice are the drink of champions.

    So is mango juice, but only when my blood sugar level is below 4.5.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,520
    I've never really been convinced by the optimism behind climate-change denial. We know that the greenhouse effect is true (just look at uncle Fred's tomatoes). Proving that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect is almost schoolboy stuff. It's obvious that we've pumped loads of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. So the deniers have to rely on some mysterious, almost miraculous, other mechanism that just happens to exists and somehow negates all that. Could we be that lucky?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,181

    The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.

    And frankly, some of them sound a bit... French !!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    edited January 5
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?

    Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.

    He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.

    *Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
    10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.

    What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.

    Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
    Oh you puritan you. Just because that is not the way it was done in the old country does not mean it is wrong. Chocolate is a great alternative to sugar in such a coffee. I am going to meet someone for such an "abomination" in 10 minutes.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,559
    edited January 5

    Miss Cyclefree, in Castle Morris Dancer, coffee is black or white. The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.

    Try it; the dirty little secret is that their coffee really is better (especially if you secretly hanker for coffee-flavour milkshakes). The even dirtier secret is that the best coffee shop for coffee if not for posing with your MacBook Pro is McDonalds.
This discussion has been closed.