Unthreaded
Jul 1, 2018 at 10:09 AM | Supertroll
No Green Vegetarian backlash then.
I have just been speaking to a local farmer. Arable is doing well, but grazing grass is not, in the current weather. His family have farmed locally since the 1920's. Their worst year was the drought of 1976, that the BBC and weather records always forget to mention, when referring to Global Warming.
golf charlie
GC Jul 1, 2018 at 9:43 AM
Air polluter! Wood despoiler! Energy thief! Quarrelmonger! Take care else you get banned from this site and have to spend your time and talent on The Conversation.
Supertroll
Jul 1, 2018 at 8:30 AM | Supertroll
Or extreme in any direction
Jul 1, 2018 at 9:19 AM | Uibhist a Tuath
I like steaks charred on the outside but rare in the middle. Does that make me extreme? The best way to do it (in my opinion, I am not a Celebrity Chef) is a griddle pan, placed on hot embers within a wood burning stove.
On this hot day, I am gathering winter fuel. It grows on trees around here. Meanwhile, up North, they are burning winter fuel in summer. What a waste. If they had encouraged regular harvesting, so much money would not be going up in smoke now.
golf charlie
UaT. Jul 1, 2018 at 9:19 AM
"Or extreme in any direction" Oh I wouldn't say that.
Supertroll
Jul 1, 2018 at 8:30 AM | Supertroll
Or extreme in any direction
Uibhist a Tuath
Life must be getting boring down in the South West and over at the Daily Mail.
Uibhist a Tuath
Oh ZED I thought you were dead, or at the very least, in a mental institution. You are still wrong on every count, including that all here are right wing.
Supertroll
"GC: you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about TR."
Jul 1, 2018 at 6:28 AM | Radical Rodent
Actually, no!
I drew attention to a Guido Fawkes cartoon. stewgreen then launched into an attack on anyone who dared point out the truth. I patiently explained the Law to the best of my ability, and admitted being wrong about being arrested for Breach of the Peace, and charged with Contempt of Court. If there is anything else I got wrong, I would be happy to be corrected.
stewgreen has a bee in his bonnet, and remains in complete denial of having got anything wrong, so discredits himself. Pcar joined in.
Videos recorded by Robinson prior to his arrest have been taken down. Does this confirm he knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and arrest was inevitable? Perhaps he thought he might get banged up for a month, and would be released with a blaze of public support?
I have never tried to gloss over the nature of the Court Case that Robinson put at risk, merely avoid commenting on something I know nothing about.. My concern is for the victims and witnesses. The UK has been appalling about ignoring victims when it comes to abuse. Victims have been further abused by the Legal System/Process intended to put an end to abuse.
When the Legal System has belatedly gone to great lengths to arrest and charge people, what kind of stupid idiot tries to blow up the Court Case? Tommy Robinson.
Anonymity in Court is fraught with problems, and recent trials involving bogus accusations of rape by opportunist women trashing the lives of men have highlighted this. This trial is "linked" to others, we do not know how or why. We do not know whether it is to protect the accused or the victims, a pop star, a Russian oligarch, Peer of the Realm, Hollywood mogul, a Rabbi, Bishop or Moslem hate preacher. Will Justice be served if the trials collapse?
Tommy Robinson cannot claim ignorance of the Law, it was explained to him. stewgreen can try to claim ignorance, but it was explained to him, by me and others, and he could even have tried to read articles written by Lawyers.
Anyone who thinks they can abuse the Law, and anyone who tries to explain it, is not just a stupid idiot, but a selfish and dangerous one.
If stewgreen believes the Law is wrong, because it does not fit with his script, then he is entitled to say so, and accept any consequences. If stewgreen has got anything right, he is entitled to say so, but all he can do is repeat false accusations, and then accuse and blame everyone else.
I am not a Lawyer. I have never been to Leeds. I do know some victims of traumatic abuse, who demonstrated phenomenal personal bravery and courage in giving evidence in Court, and being subjected to extremely hostile cross examination. Since Childline started, Courts have been much more sympathetic towards victims, even if their abuse led to crime, drugs, prostitution, prison etc. We do not know whether some of the victims/witnesses arrived in Court, from prison. Would that change the honesty and integrity of their evidence, as perceived by the jury, reporters or defendants?
golf charlie
Jul 1, 2018 at 5:47 AM | Radical Rodent
Isn't it wonderful to have the occasional reminder of how primitive and basic Climate Science was, and still is.
golf charlie
One important point you either seem to be missing or are deliberately avoiding, GC: there was NO REPORTING RESTRICTIONS DURING THE TRIAL! (Or, at least, significant parts of it.) To the best of my knowledge (albeit limited) there were no reporting restrictions in place that day – it was the sentencing of the defendants, perhaps the boringest bit of the case; the information TR gave out had previously been broadcast by the BBC, and was on the court website, so no breach of data, there, either. What reporting restrictions that were imposed were on that of the TR case. Odd, or what?
(Get your point about Stewgreen, though…)