This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
So your aim is to gradually price people out of using oil, starting with the poorest. I mean I hear you in terms of achieving your desired end, but I'm not sure any party would include it as a manifesto pledge.
We will reduce consumption of oil when we collectively believe that we need to reduce consumption of oil. That moment has not arrived yet. So on we go.
Except….
What am I looking at. Fuel consumption drops after the GFC then tries to make its way back up again and then is smacked down by Covid and is now on its way back up.
Looks to me like fuel consumption has varied but trended down (esp looking from peak to peak, trough to trough is unreasonable due to Covid) but that is aggregate consumption and not per capita.
Per capita, considering our population growth, we've had an even bigger fall in consumption.
But we need to do more on consumption. Encouraging the switch to cleaner technologies, and ensuring they're affordable.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
...maybe, but only half as fast seemingly...
Are you saying - as per Zeno's paradox - he will never stop destroying the planet.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Worth a look from the Guardian. Expect more as reality dawns. It's already too late and has been for some time if the science is correct....
You mean accept reality, that the climate changes all the time for all sorts of reasons, there is f*** all we can do to stop it, but we can mitigate it like we used to do by building things like the thames barrier, building seawalls, dredging rivers and not building houses on floodplains?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
You ignore the coming rise of batteries which mean that we can charge batteries for cheap when the wind blows, and consume off batteries when it doesn't.
The economic costs for wind turbines etc, which is essentially electricity at next to no marginal cost of consumption, is fantastic.
The fact they need to be backed by gas currently, but won't in the future, is neither here nor there. They're still both cheaper and cleaner.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Ooh Ed Davey is doing a stunt in our village tomorrow. I know what it is but probably shouldn't say.
This is what elections are all about.
As soon as I read this I immediately thought the stunt would be a recreation of the ending of the Wicker Man - with Ed Davey cast as the Edward Woodward character. No idea why - and no judgement of your village (which is I am sure lovely) - probably my twisted mind and the fact that it is Summer solstice.
The intensity of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia appears to be increasing. The linked tweet has a number of poor quality videos of explosions in the distance.
"Ukrainian UAVs once again were very active overnight. The Eysk airfield, the Lukoil oil depot in Volgograd and the Illinsky refinery were all attacked. Over 40 explosions were heard.
The Russian ministry of defense said it destroyed over 110 drones in several directions."
The Russian ministry of defense said its facilities heroically destroyed 100 Ukrainian drones.
The vast majority of drones (less so ballistic missiles) get shot down - certainly those targeting Ukraine. They've still done massive damage to power infrastructure.
My comment was meant to be a joke. I dunno, people complain when I use smileys, and people take me seriously when I don't...
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
Issues involving abstract concepts like cheating, honesty etc can't be clarified in law for all cases -they are situational. Such offences generally require 'mens rea' - guilty mind, but also for a jury/magistrate to conclude that on all the facts the behaviour was in fact dishonest or cheating or whatever.
The ones here are of course legally trivial; it's in the big bank/finance fraud cases (LIBOR for example) etc that the lawyers, quite properly, pile in.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
It is very non clear. It's a law exam, smith and Hogan sort of question. My betting is they hammer the cop and let the others off
What I don't understand is what transactions the Gambling Commission looks at and why. With jockeys and footballers betting is presumably against the rules of the professional body but why monitor the political class?
And the other thing that strikes me is the eerie parallel between rishi's nobody angrier than me spiel last night and Johnson when the parties first came to light. People don't learn.
Reflecting on the prospects of Reform UK, it occurs to me that Nigel Farage should hope that he is the only Reform MP elected. Because if there are two or more of them, the Reform parliamentary party will split at some point during the next parliament. That is a firm prediction.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
...maybe, but only half as fast seemingly...
Are you saying - as per Zeno's paradox - he will never stop destroying the planet.
..wow, I had to google that.
If Barty kept buying cars which doubled his mileage on the same amount of fuel each time, then yes, I'd agree...
Reflecting on the prospects of Reform UK, it occurs to me that Nigel Farage should hope that he is the only Reform MP elected. Because if there are two or more of them, the Reform parliamentary party will split at some point during the next parliament. That is a firm prediction.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k...
Interesting that it's Betfair Exchange. Does that make a criminal charge more likely, as they could be said effectively to be offering odds themselves by participating in that market ?
The law on cheating in gambling is very vague, but this Gambling Commission document posted by someone (apologies, cant remember who) is key to its effective interpretation.
It is pretty clear no charges will be brought on the politicians on the cheating in gambling charge.
It clearly comes under their category 4 Restricted Information:
"This is information which the individual has gained because of their role in connection with the sport or event; or because of a close association with an individual with such a connection. This information is then used for financial gain or passed onto a third party. For example: a. A club official with advance information about a team line-up that has not been made public; b. A club official with inside knowledge of the club manager leaving his position who uses or passes on this information to a third party for betting purposes c. An employee working on a television competition (eg TV talent or reality competitions) with advance knowledge of the health of a competitor, participation in a TV show or of early phone results. d. An employee of a licensed betting operator who becomes aware of information relating to an event and uses the information for commercial advantage e. An employee of a licensed betting operator uses information about unusual betting patterns to place a bet and does not take the appropriate action to notify their employers."
and the action is:
"The Commission would have concerns in this area. In most cases, the appropriate form of sanction would be through the Sports Body or through the employer, combined with the betting operator refusing the bet under contractual terms. The Commission may consider taking action to void a bet."
----
The next level up, 5, cases would start being considered for prosection.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
You ignore the coming rise of batteries which mean that we can charge batteries for cheap when the wind blows, and consume off batteries when it doesn't.
The economic costs for wind turbines etc, which is essentially electricity at next to no marginal cost of consumption, is fantastic.
The fact they need to be backed by gas currently, but won't in the future, is neither here nor there. They're still both cheaper and cleaner.
Batteries are the weak link in all this. They have far too little energy density, require rare earths in large quantities got in filthy exploitative mining operations and spontaneously combust if damaged.
The biggest mistake the rush to renewables made was piling in before a form of cheap, energy dense electrical storage was invented. Thats where all the billions of subsidies should have gone.
The developments in battery efficiency are welcome but not the game changer that is needed.
There is also the slight matter of where all the copper for these systems /electric vehicles etc is going to come from.
To me suggests the drop in Labour vote is tactical.
Perhaps - also perhaps Tory-Lab switchers now being Tory-Ref switchers. Both things.
I had said a few days ago that I didn't expect much to change in this last couple of weeks, but having seen a fair few memes about the insider betting scandal flying around I think that will depress Tory vote a little further.
I hope the selfish morons responsible, even if they don't find themselves in legal trouble, really think about the impact their actions have had on the party they purport to represent, and on the country which deserves a credible political opposition.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k...
Interesting that it's Betfair Exchange. Does that make a criminal charge more likely, as they could be said effectively to be offering odds themselves by participating in that market ?
The law on cheating in gambling is very vague, but this Gambling Commission document posted by someone (apologies, cant remember who) is key to its effective interpretation.
It is pretty clear no charges will be brought on the politicians on the cheating in gambling charge.
It clearly comes under their category 4 Restricted Information:
"This is information which the individual has gained because of their role in connection with the sport or event; or because of a close association with an individual with such a connection. This information is then used for financial gain or passed onto a third party. For example: a. A club official with advance information about a team line-up that has not been made public; b. A club official with inside knowledge of the club manager leaving his position who uses or passes on this information to a third party for betting purposes c. An employee working on a television competition (eg TV talent or reality competitions) with advance knowledge of the health of a competitor, participation in a TV show or of early phone results. d. An employee of a licensed betting operator who becomes aware of information relating to an event and uses the information for commercial advantage e. An employee of a licensed betting operator uses information about unusual betting patterns to place a bet and does not take the appropriate action to notify their employers."
and the action is:
"The Commission would have concerns in this area. In most cases, the appropriate form of sanction would be through the Sports Body or through the employer, combined with the betting operator refusing the bet under contractual terms. The Commission may consider taking action to void a bet."
----
The next level up, 5, cases would start being considered for prosection.
Personally I dont see much if any difference between 4a or 4b, which are the closest examples to the election bets, and 5d but this is the framework investigators will be using.
Level 5 is Awareness of Possible Criminality:
"This could be described as ‘getting in on the act’ ie where an individual spots some potential criminality and attempts to use that information to place bets. It could also cover an individual who becomes aware of a malfunction in processes which enables them to have prior knowledge of the outcome of an event: a. A trader spotting a strong trend of bets contrary to the odds in a location close to the home of a primary participant; b. A trader or retail worker identifying individuals connected to a group of players placing bets on their team to lose; c. Being aware of an attempt to dishonestly manipulate betting odds or an event. They are not part of this attempt or have not initiated or paid for this manipulation to occur but have become aware of the attempt through their role. d. Becoming aware of a breach in sports rules which provides an advantage to those with advance knowledge – eg knowing that a participant intends to pull out of a tournament or event despite a public commitment to participate. e. Commonly, the Commission would identify this behaviour when an employee of a betting operator fails to protect the operator from exposure to risk and fails to make a 15.1 report, and instead gains from making bets using the information."
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k...
Interesting that it's Betfair Exchange. Does that make a criminal charge more likely, as they could be said effectively to be offering odds themselves by participating in that market ?
The law on cheating in gambling is very vague, but this Gambling Commission document posted by someone (apologies, cant remember who) is key to its effective interpretation.
It is pretty clear no charges will be brought on the politicians on the cheating in gambling charge.
It clearly comes under their category 4 Restricted Information:
"This is information which the individual has gained because of their role in connection with the sport or event; or because of a close association with an individual with such a connection. This information is then used for financial gain or passed onto a third party. For example: a. A club official with advance information about a team line-up that has not been made public; b. A club official with inside knowledge of the club manager leaving his position who uses or passes on this information to a third party for betting purposes c. An employee working on a television competition (eg TV talent or reality competitions) with advance knowledge of the health of a competitor, participation in a TV show or of early phone results. d. An employee of a licensed betting operator who becomes aware of information relating to an event and uses the information for commercial advantage e. An employee of a licensed betting operator uses information about unusual betting patterns to place a bet and does not take the appropriate action to notify their employers."
and the action is:
"The Commission would have concerns in this area. In most cases, the appropriate form of sanction would be through the Sports Body or through the employer, combined with the betting operator refusing the bet under contractual terms. The Commission may consider taking action to void a bet."
----
The next level up, 5, cases would start being considered for prosection.
Indeed, one for IBAS to potentially deal with rather than the CPS as I've pointed out all along.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
You ignore the coming rise of batteries which mean that we can charge batteries for cheap when the wind blows, and consume off batteries when it doesn't.
The economic costs for wind turbines etc, which is essentially electricity at next to no marginal cost of consumption, is fantastic.
The fact they need to be backed by gas currently, but won't in the future, is neither here nor there. They're still both cheaper and cleaner.
Batteries are the weak link in all this. They have far too little energy density, require rare earths in large quantities got in filthy exploitative mining operations and spontaneously combust if damaged.
The biggest mistake the rush to renewables made was piling in before a form of cheap, energy dense electrical storage was invented. Thats where all the billions of subsidies should have gone.
The developments in battery efficiency are welcome but not the game changer that is needed.
There is also the slight matter of where all the copper for these systems /electric vehicles etc is going to come from.
Batteries are not a weak link, they're getting rolled out every day.
The UK is currently consuming 30.43 GW of electricity.
The UK has 33.5 million cars on the road. Switching them all to electric vehicles, at an average of 60 kWh per vehicle, would mean 1,980 GWh of battery storage in EVs alone.
More than enough to consume any wind that is blowing at any time.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
Issues involving abstract concepts like cheating, honesty etc can't be clarified in law for all cases -they are situational. Such offences generally require 'mens rea' - guilty mind, but also for a jury/magistrate to conclude that on all the facts the behaviour was in fact dishonest or cheating or whatever.
The ones here are of course legally trivial; it's in the big bank/finance fraud cases (LIBOR for example) etc that the lawyers, quite properly, pile in.
The Ivey case which is the only high profile case law (albeit civil) for cheating in gambling changed the ruling on dishonesty, so it may be interpreted differently for gambling.
"For 35 years, juries hearing cases involving dishonesty have been told that defendants should only be found guilty on the basis of the two-stage test set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982]. The first stage in that test is whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people. The second stage is that the defendant must have realised ordinary and honest people would regard his/her behavior as being dishonest. However, in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd Crockfords, the Supreme Court removed the second stage of this test, therefore making what the defendant thought about how others would regard his actions as irrelevant. Instead, all cases should now be determined on an objective basis of whether the defendant’s conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary people."
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
So you say we need tidal power as well to be part of the baseline?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
I totally agree with you on almost all of that besides the snide remark at the end. Putin's useful idiots are on all extremes of the spectrum.
And cutting off our nose to spite our face in cutting our production of oil, which can feed plastics etc as you say, is also playing into Putin's hands as you know.
We should be investing in renewables and our own oil. We should be investing in divesting from burning oil, as well as ensuring we don't need oil from Putin or OPEC.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
Lots of twitter excitement about Sunak having 'shame on you' yelled at him on QT but for as much as the left cheer it, it will have pissed off those for whom immigration. Etc is a key issue, the voters Reform and Con are fighting for. That Sunak is despised by those that are irreconcilably anti Tory is obvious. The whole pantomime audience schtick on QT and the like gets very old.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
You ignore the coming rise of batteries which mean that we can charge batteries for cheap when the wind blows, and consume off batteries when it doesn't.
The economic costs for wind turbines etc, which is essentially electricity at next to no marginal cost of consumption, is fantastic.
The fact they need to be backed by gas currently, but won't in the future, is neither here nor there. They're still both cheaper and cleaner.
Batteries are the weak link in all this. They have far too little energy density, require rare earths in large quantities got in filthy exploitative mining operations and spontaneously combust if damaged.
The biggest mistake the rush to renewables made was piling in before a form of cheap, energy dense electrical storage was invented. Thats where all the billions of subsidies should have gone.
The developments in battery efficiency are welcome but not the game changer that is needed.
There is also the slight matter of where all the copper for these systems /electric vehicles etc is going to come from.
Batteries are not a weak link, they're getting rolled out every day.
The UK is currently consuming 30.43 GW of electricity.
The UK has 33.5 million cars on the road. Switching them all to electric vehicles, at an average of 60 kWh per vehicle, would mean 1,980 GWh of battery storage in EVs alone.
More than enough to consume any wind that is blowing at any time.
Good luck with that. Are you planning to ban people from driving and charging their cars when we get a winter high with a fortnight of freezing fog, so that the lights don't go out?
Also, good luck with finding the copper to fit out the cars, their charging systems, and upgrading the last mile grid to cope.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
It is what happens when you pass laws with vague lofty clauses granting opaque, ill defined, rights, like the Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act and Equalities Act.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
No
What you do is join in there fun. Make it obvious why such laws are a bad idea.
Start with a law saying that the anti-climate change backlash in climate protestors actions must be taken into account when sentencing them.
It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Supreme Court judges start their work agreeing on a conclusion then trawl through the law books in search of a justification. It is, after all, how the Supreme Court in Washington behaves and which 'ours' was always intended to emulate. Needless to say the selective interpretation of multiple, often contradictory laws will always get them to the finish line.
This is, it seems to me, utterly untrue. In this particular case the SC was divided 3-2, and their reasoning is open to examination. Reality multiplied by decades of law and precedent just is complicated, and legislation/regulation is both binding and ambiguous. The quality of our very highest judges is astonishing as becomes clear if you read a few hundred judgements from the SC/Court of Appeal/Chancery Division.
The problem with the law is not judicial quality, I doubt if it has evr been higher; it is equal access, for as we know, like the Ritz Hotel, our courts are open to all.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
I'd consider it a complete waste of everyone's time if the CPS go anywhere near this.
Depends if we can tie Rayner to it somehow really.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
The answer is nowhere near as much as it costs to buy the gas or coal we'd need to be burning all the time if we didn't have the vast network of turbines etc.
Lots of twitter excitement about Sunak having 'shame on you' yelled at him on QT but for as much as the left cheer it, it will have pissed off those for whom immigration. Etc is a key issue, the voters Reform and Con are fighting for. That Sunak is despised by those that are irreconcilably anti Tory is obvious. The whole pantomime audience schtick on QT and the like gets very old.
Lots of twitter excitement about Sunak having 'shame on you' yelled at him on QT but for as much as the left cheer it, it will have pissed off those for whom immigration. Etc is a key issue, the voters Reform and Con are fighting for. That Sunak is despised by those that are irreconcilably anti Tory is obvious. The whole pantomime audience schtick on QT and the like gets very old.
QT doesn't need the audience. Ideally it would have a non activist audience but that isn't really possible and no audience is far better than a load of party apoaratchiks of all flavours pretending to "ordinary" people.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
So you say we need tidal power as well to be part of the baseline?
Cancellation of the Swansea Bay system was a disgrace. The bulk of the costs was the civil engineering for the barrage that would have lasted 100+ years.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
The answer is nowhere near as much as it costs to buy the gas or coal we'd need to be burning all the time if we didn't have the vast network of turbines etc.
Bilge - what do you think is used to provide the energy to build, maintain and decomission the turbines, solar panels and their vast connecting networks?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
AIUI, the cost of building and maintaining a gas power plant is small compared to the cost of the gas required to run it. In which case, it could make perfect sense on economic grounds to use renewable energy when it is available and run gas power stations otherwise. I don't don't have the numbers to hand though. You evidently do though, so perhaps you can show us your figures.
I'd also note that even without renewables, some power plants will necessarily be idle for most of the time given the daily and yearly fluctuations in electricity consumption.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
I'd advocate a middle road, gas is a flexible enough power source and helps during cloudy blocked winter highs. We can turn them on and off when the turbines/solar aren't spinning - LNG logistics have improved since Russia's invasion. Nuclear and wind don't dovetail well to my mind as nuclear is inflexible compared to gas. Seeing as we've built plenty of wind and gas plants I'd keep those on/continue to build both
GC view would be void bet and report to employer and official bodies to take any further action. So report to IPSA, Cabinet Office and CCHQ for the politicans.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
Or we find a way to store electricity
Which is what I said upthread.
Batteries are rubbish.
All the billions spent on renewables subsidies should have gone on a research programme to develop a cheap, stable, energy dense storage method for electricity.
We put the cart before the horse and enriched a vast amount of spivs along the way.
One factor which might add to a higher turnout is the >1m voters who registered in the last week of voter registration (c. 2% of the total registered voters?). I think it's safe to assume those people who bothered to register are very likely to vote.
I'm not sure if the figures cover the same period but that seems like it might be low by comparison with 2017 and 2019
Fair point, I hadn't considered that. 660k registered on the last day of the 2019 GE registration, 632k this time. 73% of those last day registrations were for under 45s this time, not sure how that compares with last time.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k...
Interesting that it's Betfair Exchange. Does that make a criminal charge more likely, as they could be said effectively to be offering odds themselves by participating in that market ?
The law on cheating in gambling is very vague, but this Gambling Commission document posted by someone (apologies, cant remember who) is key to its effective interpretation.
It is pretty clear no charges will be brought on the politicians on the cheating in gambling charge.
It clearly comes under their category 4 Restricted Information:
"This is information which the individual has gained because of their role in connection with the sport or event; or because of a close association with an individual with such a connection. This information is then used for financial gain or passed onto a third party. For example: a. A club official with advance information about a team line-up that has not been made public; b. A club official with inside knowledge of the club manager leaving his position who uses or passes on this information to a third party for betting purposes c. An employee working on a television competition (eg TV talent or reality competitions) with advance knowledge of the health of a competitor, participation in a TV show or of early phone results. d. An employee of a licensed betting operator who becomes aware of information relating to an event and uses the information for commercial advantage e. An employee of a licensed betting operator uses information about unusual betting patterns to place a bet and does not take the appropriate action to notify their employers."
and the action is:
"The Commission would have concerns in this area. In most cases, the appropriate form of sanction would be through the Sports Body or through the employer, combined with the betting operator refusing the bet under contractual terms. The Commission may consider taking action to void a bet."
----
The next level up, 5, cases would start being considered for prosection.
Interesting but I am not sure if it's interpreting or hallucinating. Lots of jolly naughty and unsporting behaviour there but it expects the bookies to "refuse the bet under contractual terms" when there aren't any. Betfair says nothing about fraud, Ladbrokes says it's against fraud and will prosecute it but with no attempt to define it.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
I totally agree with you on almost all of that besides the snide remark at the end. Putin's useful idiots are on all extremes of the spectrum.
And cutting off our nose to spite our face in cutting our production of oil, which can feed plastics etc as you say, is also playing into Putin's hands as you know.
We should be investing in renewables and our own oil. We should be investing in divesting from burning oil, as well as ensuring we don't need oil from Putin or OPEC.
The point is that oil is a finite resource. Should be we be squandering it by burning it as fuel now when we might be desperate for it in the future for more essential purposes? I say we should leave it in the ground, at least for now. Our children may be very grateful to still have the option of tapping it in the future.
GC view would be void bet and report to employer and official bodies to take any further action. So report to IPSA, Cabinet Office and CCHQ for the politicans.
If they've bet on Betfair and profited, Betfair can void their individual bet and profit (Whilst also benefitting the layers of the individual bets); and no it doesn't matter if they've withdrawn the money as it's perfectly possible to have a negative balance with Betfair (I've had one myself in the past). Anyone who laid a July election on I think May 21st ? might have to ask IBAS nicely first though for that to be instigated.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
Or we find a way to store electricity
Which is what I said upthread.
Batteries are rubbish.
All the billions spent on renewables subsidies should have gone on a research programme to develop a cheap, stable, energy dense storage method for electricity.
We put the cart before the horse and enriched a vast amount of spivs along the way.
That's the NHS side of a bus fallacy. Smaller cheaper longer lasting batteries are the holy grail of technical research - more desirable than general AI and a cure for cancer put together. There's no shortage of research there.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
It is what happens when you pass laws with vague lofty clauses granting opaque, ill defined, rights, like the Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act and Equalities Act.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
No
What you do is join in there fun. Make it obvious why such laws are a bad idea.
Start with a law saying that the anti-climate change backlash in climate protestors actions must be taken into account when sentencing them.
It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Supreme Court judges start their work agreeing on a conclusion then trawl through the law books in search of a justification. It is, after all, how the Supreme Court in Washington behaves and which 'ours' was always intended to emulate. Needless to say the selective interpretation of multiple, often contradictory laws will always get them to the finish line.
This is, it seems to me, utterly untrue. In this particular case the SC was divided 3-2, and their reasoning is open to examination. Reality multiplied by decades of law and precedent just is complicated, and legislation/regulation is both binding and ambiguous. The quality of our very highest judges is astonishing as becomes clear if you read a few hundred judgements from the SC/Court of Appeal/Chancery Division.
The problem with the law is not judicial quality, I doubt if it has evr been higher; it is equal access, for as we know, like the Ritz Hotel, our courts are open to all.
The US supreme court also has many split verdicts.
But that doesn't stop them from being political.
The difference is we know the political beliefs of the scotus judges but we don't for the scotuk judges.
The advantage in the UK isn't in any higher quality of our judges its that they have less power compared with those in the USA.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
GC view would be void bet and report to employer and official bodies to take any further action. So report to IPSA, Cabinet Office and CCHQ for the politicans.
If they've bet on Betfair and profited, Betfair can void their individual bet and profit (Whilst also benefitting the layers of the individual bets); and no it doesn't matter if they've withdrawn the money as it's perfectly possible to have a negative balance with Betfair (I've had one myself in the past).
What are the grounds on which Betfair voids the bet?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
I'd advocate a middle road, gas is a flexible enough power source and helps during cloudy blocked winter highs. We can turn them on and off when the turbines/solar aren't spinning - LNG logistics have improved since Russia's invasion. Nuclear and wind don't dovetail well to my mind as nuclear is inflexible compared to gas. Seeing as we've built plenty of wind and gas plants I'd keep those on/continue to build both
There is also the matter of base load. You need vast nuclear, coal and/or "traditional" gas power stations to provide that.
Otherwise after a national grid collapse (as happened in the 1987 storm) you would never be able to charge it (switch it on) again.
That is why Hinckley Point etc are being built at such eyewatering costs.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
Issues involving abstract concepts like cheating, honesty etc can't be clarified in law for all cases -they are situational. Such offences generally require 'mens rea' - guilty mind, but also for a jury/magistrate to conclude that on all the facts the behaviour was in fact dishonest or cheating or whatever.
The ones here are of course legally trivial; it's in the big bank/finance fraud cases (LIBOR for example) etc that the lawyers, quite properly, pile in.
The Ivey case which is the only high profile case law (albeit civil) for cheating in gambling changed the ruling on dishonesty, so it may be interpreted differently for gambling.
"For 35 years, juries hearing cases involving dishonesty have been told that defendants should only be found guilty on the basis of the two-stage test set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982]. The first stage in that test is whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people. The second stage is that the defendant must have realised ordinary and honest people would regard his/her behavior as being dishonest. However, in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd Crockfords, the Supreme Court removed the second stage of this test, therefore making what the defendant thought about how others would regard his actions as irrelevant. Instead, all cases should now be determined on an objective basis of whether the defendant’s conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary people."
Yes, for criminal law see R v Barton and Booth. However this test doesn't change most things hugely except for people who have ideas of honesty diverging from the norm. The problem with a subjective test of course is that the worst of thieves may use the defence that they had no idea it was wrong or that anyone else did.
Greens doing well, nobody else setting the Vale alight
Exactly. I think the scenario here is that at regular district (and to some extent county) elections round there, the LibDems and Greens don't usually campaign against each other - both Vale and OCC are "all-in" elections rather than split over several years, so there's an advantage in splitting the effort. Whereas with this being a by-election, they've both had a go. The LibDems were incumbents in Sutton Courtenay. Hence the result is a pretty straight LibDem->Green transfer.
The Greens aren't bothering in Didcot & Wantage at the General so I'd expect that vote to stick with the LibDems.
Pretty much this ^^^
The local Greens are strong advocates of target-to-win and they saw an opportunity here. They threw the kitchen sink at it (and why not?)
Their leaflets were "It's between [Green candidate] and just another Lib Dem councillor - the Tories can't win here" (with no mention of Labour), and they canvassed, leafleted like, well, us, and went for posters and stakeboards. Including some naughty posters attached to lampposts at the last minute that couldn't be taken down in time. [The "the Tories can't win here" line almost ended up being horribly ironic, as it turns out."]
It's also the first time I've ever known every party have an active GOTV operation in Sutton Courtenay. All four parties were knocking on doors in Sutton Courtenay village until gone 8pm (I should know; I was the teller at the Village Hall. Only teller there, so the other three parties were knocking up blind). Turnout went from around PCC-election-rates to normal-district-council-election-rates at about 7.15 and held there for a while, and several voters mentioned to me that they'd had knocks on the door.
The county division is traditionally close - this is the fourth election since its creation in 2013, and this is actually only the third-closest result. The district ward was traditionally safe Tory, with LDs nowhere (and Labour way back when, from 1979-2003), but Richard stormed it in 2019, riding the perfect wave of massive Tory unpopularity and his own personal vote as county councillor. Holding it with the LDem/Green vote splitting like that' losing Richard's personal vote, and Labour poking their head in was actually a huge relief.
Ooh Ed Davey is doing a stunt in our village tomorrow. I know what it is but probably shouldn't say.
This is what elections are all about.
As soon as I read this I immediately thought the stunt would be a recreation of the ending of the Wicker Man - with Ed Davey cast as the Edward Woodward character. No idea why - and no judgement of your village (which is I am sure lovely) - probably my twisted mind and the fact that it is Summer solstice.
Ed Davey and Angela Rayner are my 2024 election heroes though when the history comes to be written I suspect it will be all about Keir Starmer and his cunning plan four years in the making..........
Taking an overview I can't help thinking one of his masterstrokes will be seen to be the appointment of his chief of staff. One of those figures that have passed under the radar.
If you were doing a seven parter on the election that changed the country episode 1 would open with Sue Gray doing her report on the drinks affair at number 10 and Keir Starmer and various dignitaries saying what an excellent choice she is to run the inquiry............
Macron's brilliant 7D chess not necessarily panning out to his advantage
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7): Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34% Leftwing Popular Front on 29% President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
It is what happens when you pass laws with vague lofty clauses granting opaque, ill defined, rights, like the Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act and Equalities Act.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
No
What you do is join in there fun. Make it obvious why such laws are a bad idea.
Start with a law saying that the anti-climate change backlash in climate protestors actions must be taken into account when sentencing them.
It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Supreme Court judges start their work agreeing on a conclusion then trawl through the law books in search of a justification. It is, after all, how the Supreme Court in Washington behaves and which 'ours' was always intended to emulate. Needless to say the selective interpretation of multiple, often contradictory laws will always get them to the finish line.
This is, it seems to me, utterly untrue. In this particular case the SC was divided 3-2, and their reasoning is open to examination. Reality multiplied by decades of law and precedent just is complicated, and legislation/regulation is both binding and ambiguous. The quality of our very highest judges is astonishing as becomes clear if you read a few hundred judgements from the SC/Court of Appeal/Chancery Division.
The problem with the law is not judicial quality, I doubt if it has evr been higher; it is equal access, for as we know, like the Ritz Hotel, our courts are open to all.
The US supreme court also has many split verdicts.
But that doesn't stop them from being political.
The difference is we know the political beliefs of the scotus judges but we don't for the scotuk judges.
The advantage in the UK isn't in any higher quality of our judges its that they have less power compared with those in the USA.
Although in practice it's a largely theoretical "threat" Parliament could, in extremis, unmake SCOTUK with a simple act. The bar to undoing the US court is way way harder I believe.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
I'd advocate a middle road, gas is a flexible enough power source and helps during cloudy blocked winter highs. We can turn them on and off when the turbines/solar aren't spinning - LNG logistics have improved since Russia's invasion. Nuclear and wind don't dovetail well to my mind as nuclear is inflexible compared to gas. Seeing as we've built plenty of wind and gas plants I'd keep those on/continue to build both
There is also the matter of base load. You need vast nuclear, coal and/or "traditional" gas power stations to provide that.
Otherwise after a national grid collapse (as happened in the 1987 storm) you would never be able to charge it (switch it on) again.
That is why Hinckley Point etc are being built at such eyewatering costs.
For the cost of another nuclear plant, you could have four tidal plants - producing 12 GW instead of 3 GW....
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
I did read an apocraphal conspiracy that that is what they are really up to. Let China and India burn all their coal. Then when it is gone, sell our still vast reserves at eyewatering cost
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
I'd advocate a middle road, gas is a flexible enough power source and helps during cloudy blocked winter highs. We can turn them on and off when the turbines/solar aren't spinning - LNG logistics have improved since Russia's invasion. Nuclear and wind don't dovetail well to my mind as nuclear is inflexible compared to gas. Seeing as we've built plenty of wind and gas plants I'd keep those on/continue to build both
There is also the matter of base load. You need vast nuclear, coal and/or "traditional" gas power stations to provide that.
Otherwise after a national grid collapse (as happened in the 1987 storm) you would never be able to charge it (switch it on) again.
That is why Hinckley Point etc are being built at such eyewatering costs.
For the cost of another nuclear plant, you could have four tidal plants - producing 12 GW instead of 3 GW....
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
You point out the real reason for the Turbines and Solar Panels. Energy Security and minimising dependence on Vladimir and sundry Sheiks.
Macron's brilliant 7D chess not necessarily panning out to his advantage
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7): Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34% Leftwing Popular Front on 29% President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
The Rest is Politics had an interesting conversation about this. Macron's parliamentary coalition was going to collapse in the autumn anyway. I think he just thought: 'merde, let's roll the dice and see what happens'.
GC view would be void bet and report to employer and official bodies to take any further action. So report to IPSA, Cabinet Office and CCHQ for the politicans.
If they've bet on Betfair and profited, Betfair can void their individual bet and profit (Whilst also benefitting the layers of the individual bets); and no it doesn't matter if they've withdrawn the money as it's perfectly possible to have a negative balance with Betfair (I've had one myself in the past).
What are the grounds on which Betfair voids the bet?
Well they wouldn't unless... as I edited the post after to clarify, July layers would have to go to IBAS and point out the breach of rule 4a as @noneoftheabove mentioned for any lays on May 21st.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
Issues involving abstract concepts like cheating, honesty etc can't be clarified in law for all cases -they are situational. Such offences generally require 'mens rea' - guilty mind, but also for a jury/magistrate to conclude that on all the facts the behaviour was in fact dishonest or cheating or whatever.
The ones here are of course legally trivial; it's in the big bank/finance fraud cases (LIBOR for example) etc that the lawyers, quite properly, pile in.
The Ivey case which is the only high profile case law (albeit civil) for cheating in gambling changed the ruling on dishonesty, so it may be interpreted differently for gambling.
"For 35 years, juries hearing cases involving dishonesty have been told that defendants should only be found guilty on the basis of the two-stage test set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982]. The first stage in that test is whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people. The second stage is that the defendant must have realised ordinary and honest people would regard his/her behavior as being dishonest. However, in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd Crockfords, the Supreme Court removed the second stage of this test, therefore making what the defendant thought about how others would regard his actions as irrelevant. Instead, all cases should now be determined on an objective basis of whether the defendant’s conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary people."
Yes, for criminal law see R v Barton and Booth. However this test doesn't change most things hugely except for people who have ideas of honesty diverging from the norm. The problem with a subjective test of course is that the worst of thieves may use the defence that they had no idea it was wrong or that anyone else did.
Gamblers probably do have different sense of fair play within gambling compared to most people. Not always stricter or more lenient, but based on common practice and etiquette.
Particularly bad recent examples are the criminalisation of opening accounts in other peoples names, which has been standard practice in the industry for decades and there is no way a jury of gamblers would have convicted.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
I'd advocate a middle road, gas is a flexible enough power source and helps during cloudy blocked winter highs. We can turn them on and off when the turbines/solar aren't spinning - LNG logistics have improved since Russia's invasion. Nuclear and wind don't dovetail well to my mind as nuclear is inflexible compared to gas. Seeing as we've built plenty of wind and gas plants I'd keep those on/continue to build both
There is also the matter of base load. You need vast nuclear, coal and/or "traditional" gas power stations to provide that.
Otherwise after a national grid collapse (as happened in the 1987 storm) you would never be able to charge it (switch it on) again.
That is why Hinckley Point etc are being built at such eyewatering costs.
For the cost of another nuclear plant, you could have four tidal plants - producing 12 GW instead of 3 GW....
Yep. Good luck getting that past the nimbies.
Not the problem you think it is. The one at Swnasea had 80% local suppport through planning.
And the planning process takes a fraction of the time that a nuclear plant does.
Lots of twitter excitement about Sunak having 'shame on you' yelled at him on QT but for as much as the left cheer it, it will have pissed off those for whom immigration. Etc is a key issue, the voters Reform and Con are fighting for. That Sunak is despised by those that are irreconcilably anti Tory is obvious. The whole pantomime audience schtick on QT and the like gets very old.
I predict it will make no difference. The QT format last night was so boring (and Bruce such a flat hostess) that I doubt many of those who even bothered to watch it reached the end of the show.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
Or we find a way to store electricity
Which is what I said upthread.
Batteries are rubbish.
All the billions spent on renewables subsidies should have gone on a research programme to develop a cheap, stable, energy dense storage method for electricity.
We put the cart before the horse and enriched a vast amount of spivs along the way.
By building lots of wind turbines we are creating a large market for electricity storage. Private companies and individuals will invest money into finding technology to exploit that market, without any subsidy.
Batteries have taken an early lead, but if someone develops a superior technology then that will take over.
So it was right to go ahead with wind power before having a storage solution ready. Often the market will provide if you create the market opportunity.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
You point out the real reason for the Turbines and Solar Panels. Energy Security and minimising dependence on Vladimir and sundry Sheiks.
There are also the facts that climate change is a thing and fossil fuels are finite.
Macron's brilliant 7D chess not necessarily panning out to his advantage
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7): Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34% Leftwing Popular Front on 29% President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
The Rest is Politics had an interesting conversation about this. Macron's parliamentary coalition was going to collapse in the autumn anyway. I think he just thought: 'merde, let's roll the dice and see what happens'.
It's what Sunak should've done in May. 2023.
But I am old enough to remember analysts telling us - about a week ago - that this was another genius move from the "audacious" French president, and he had wrong footed the far right and far left in one deft masterstroke. Instead he looks like coming last - while empowering the far left and far right. And he has also pushed France closer to civil conflict, there are hideous stories circulating on social media
Ooh Ed Davey is doing a stunt in our village tomorrow. I know what it is but probably shouldn't say.
This is what elections are all about.
As soon as I read this I immediately thought the stunt would be a recreation of the ending of the Wicker Man - with Ed Davey cast as the Edward Woodward character. No idea why - and no judgement of your village (which is I am sure lovely) - probably my twisted mind and the fact that it is Summer solstice.
Ed Davey and Angela Rayner are my 2024 election heroes though when the history comes to be written I suspect it will be all about Keir Starmer and his cunning plan four years in the making..........
Taking an overview I can't help thinking one of his masterstrokes will be seen to be the appointment of his chief of staff. One of those figures that have passed under the radar.
If you were doing a seven parter on the election that changed the country episode 1 would open with Sue Gray doing her report on the drinks affair at number 10 and Keir Starmer and various dignitaries saying what an excellent choice she is to run the inquiry............
She's a smart cookie, no doubt. Strong track record. Good choice both by Johnson* for the investigation, and Starmer for his CoS.
(*Good choice for the country, not for Johnson personally.)
Lots of twitter excitement about Sunak having 'shame on you' yelled at him on QT but for as much as the left cheer it, it will have pissed off those for whom immigration. Etc is a key issue, the voters Reform and Con are fighting for. That Sunak is despised by those that are irreconcilably anti Tory is obvious. The whole pantomime audience schtick on QT and the like gets very old.
I predict it will make no difference. The QT format last night was so boring (and Bruce such a flat hostess) that I doubt many of those who even bothered to watch it reached the end of the show.
Spain vs Italy was a bit of a corker too for a group stage match.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
Or we find a way to store electricity
Which is what I said upthread.
Batteries are rubbish.
All the billions spent on renewables subsidies should have gone on a research programme to develop a cheap, stable, energy dense storage method for electricity.
We put the cart before the horse and enriched a vast amount of spivs along the way.
By building lots of wind turbines we are creating a large market for electricity storage. Private companies and individuals will invest money into finding technology to exploit that market, without any subsidy.
Batteries have taken an early lead, but if someone develops a superior technology then that will take over.
So it was right to go ahead with wind power before having a storage solution ready. Often the market will provide if you create the market opportunity.
Also demand management through flexible pricing, e.g. Agile Octopus and the like. I'm sure this will become more prevalent in future, especially for high energy consumption industries.
Macron's brilliant 7D chess not necessarily panning out to his advantage
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7): Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34% Leftwing Popular Front on 29% President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
The Rest is Politics had an interesting conversation about this. Macron's parliamentary coalition was going to collapse in the autumn anyway. I think he just thought: 'merde, let's roll the dice and see what happens'.
It's what Sunak should've done in May. 2023.
Sunak should have waited until Jan 2025, just in case something showed up to save him or screw Labour - unlikely, but possible. Also Farage would have been off in America with Trump
Instead he went at the worst possible time, just before terrible migration stats and with Gareth Southgate as England manager
Out talking to a T about a half-broken boiler last night (not one that I installed), in a house I purchased refurbished for them to rent long-term back in 2016. In Lee Anderson's old area where he was a Councillor. For clarity, it has 3 double bedrooms needed for the mix of kids, and those in smaller affordable houses are like hens' teeth, everywhere - except perhaps where the housing stock is ancient (ie much Victorian or earlier), but those areas are usually gentrified.
I discovered a wrinkle in the Eco 4 boiler replacement scheme regs I did not know about - if you are an owner occupier, all else being equal, you can be funded for a new boiler if your house is a DEFG EOC grade (ie below 68); if you are a private tenant in the same circs funding is limited to EFG grades. There will be different views on that. It's a strange tilt in a scheme which is supposed to be done on a criteria of actual C02 emissions saved. This house is a mid-D on the sheet, probably somewhat higher now since I do upgrade work when convenient - sigh.
Placards - I found 3 or 4 (shortish) streets in the historic Leeanderthal area where 15-25% of the houses in a street have Reform garden placards.
Also dark rumours about Ashfield Independents turning up at Council Houses saying effectively "we are the Council, so you display one of our placards", and of such placards all mysteriously vanishing. Quite credible, but rumours, and quite credible that other parties would create such rumours for reasons.
Welcome to the shark-infested custard of Ashfield politics.
Lots of twitter excitement about Sunak having 'shame on you' yelled at him on QT but for as much as the left cheer it, it will have pissed off those for whom immigration. Etc is a key issue, the voters Reform and Con are fighting for. That Sunak is despised by those that are irreconcilably anti Tory is obvious. The whole pantomime audience schtick on QT and the like gets very old.
I predict it will make no difference. The QT format last night was so boring (and Bruce such a flat hostess) that I doubt many of those who even bothered to watch it reached the end of the show.
Oh I agree, it was more a comment on QT audiences generally and social media 'takes'
Macron's brilliant 7D chess not necessarily panning out to his advantage
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7): Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34% Leftwing Popular Front on 29% President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
The Rest is Politics had an interesting conversation about this. Macron's parliamentary coalition was going to collapse in the autumn anyway. I think he just thought: 'merde, let's roll the dice and see what happens'.
It's what Sunak should've done in May. 2023.
But I am old enough to remember analysts telling us - about a week ago - that this was another genius move from the "audacious" French president, and he had wrong footed the far right and far left in one deft masterstroke. Instead he looks like coming last - while empowering the far left and far right. And he has also pushed France closer to civil conflict, there are hideous stories circulating on social media
To be fair, mind, most analysts I read said "what on earth is he up to? This seems daft." or words to that effect.
I'm with BenPointer on this. It was going to shit anyway.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
...maybe, but only half as fast seemingly...
Are you saying - as per Zeno's paradox - he will never stop destroying the planet.
..wow, I had to google that.
If Barty kept buying cars which doubled his mileage on the same amount of fuel each time, then yes, I'd agree...
I have an 18-year-old car. The new version of the same car is more than twice as fuel efficient. Most new petrol cars sold now do 60mpg.
Macron's brilliant 7D chess not necessarily panning out to his advantage
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7): Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34% Leftwing Popular Front on 29% President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
The Rest is Politics had an interesting conversation about this. Macron's parliamentary coalition was going to collapse in the autumn anyway. I think he just thought: 'merde, let's roll the dice and see what happens'.
It's what Sunak should've done in May. 2023.
But I am old enough to remember analysts telling us - about a week ago - that this was another genius move from the "audacious" French president, and he had wrong footed the far right and far left in one deft masterstroke. Instead he looks like coming last - while empowering the far left and far right. And he has also pushed France closer to civil conflict, there are hideous stories circulating on social media
To be fair, mind, most analysts I read said "what on earth is he up to? This seems daft." or words to that effect.
I'm with BenPointer on this. It was going to shit anyway.
Hard disagree. In democratic politics if you are in deep merde you always wait for events to come along and maybe change things for the better, if you can. No one sensibly votes for their date of execution to be brought forward
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
Issues involving abstract concepts like cheating, honesty etc can't be clarified in law for all cases -they are situational. Such offences generally require 'mens rea' - guilty mind, but also for a jury/magistrate to conclude that on all the facts the behaviour was in fact dishonest or cheating or whatever.
The ones here are of course legally trivial; it's in the big bank/finance fraud cases (LIBOR for example) etc that the lawyers, quite properly, pile in.
The Ivey case which is the only high profile case law (albeit civil) for cheating in gambling changed the ruling on dishonesty, so it may be interpreted differently for gambling.
"For 35 years, juries hearing cases involving dishonesty have been told that defendants should only be found guilty on the basis of the two-stage test set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982]. The first stage in that test is whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people. The second stage is that the defendant must have realised ordinary and honest people would regard his/her behavior as being dishonest. However, in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd Crockfords, the Supreme Court removed the second stage of this test, therefore making what the defendant thought about how others would regard his actions as irrelevant. Instead, all cases should now be determined on an objective basis of whether the defendant’s conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary people."
Yes, for criminal law see R v Barton and Booth. However this test doesn't change most things hugely except for people who have ideas of honesty diverging from the norm. The problem with a subjective test of course is that the worst of thieves may use the defence that they had no idea it was wrong or that anyone else did.
Gamblers probably do have different sense of fair play within gambling compared to most people. Not always stricter or more lenient, but based on common practice and etiquette.
Particularly bad recent examples are the criminalisation of opening accounts in other peoples names, which has been standard practice in the industry for decades and there is no way a jury of gamblers would have convicted.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
We are sadly still dependent on oil right now. But becoming gradually less dependent by the day. In 16 years time the Russians and Arabs will be left with a lot of interesting but largely useless black flammable stuff because we will have moved on to other sources. But we aren't there yet.
Macron's brilliant 7D chess not necessarily panning out to his advantage
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7): Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34% Leftwing Popular Front on 29% President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
The Rest is Politics had an interesting conversation about this. Macron's parliamentary coalition was going to collapse in the autumn anyway. I think he just thought: 'merde, let's roll the dice and see what happens'.
It's what Sunak should've done in May. 2023.
But I am old enough to remember analysts telling us - about a week ago - that this was another genius move from the "audacious" French president, and he had wrong footed the far right and far left in one deft masterstroke. Instead he looks like coming last - while empowering the far left and far right. And he has also pushed France closer to civil conflict, there are hideous stories circulating on social media
To be fair, mind, most analysts I read said "what on earth is he up to? This seems daft." or words to that effect.
I'm with BenPointer on this. It was going to shit anyway.
Wasn’t the genius 7-D chess move supposed to be that this would put RN into power, show them up as incompetent and therefore smooth the path for Macron’s successor?
GC view would be void bet and report to employer and official bodies to take any further action. So report to IPSA, Cabinet Office and CCHQ for the politicans.
If they've bet on Betfair and profited, Betfair can void their individual bet and profit (Whilst also benefitting the layers of the individual bets); and no it doesn't matter if they've withdrawn the money as it's perfectly possible to have a negative balance with Betfair (I've had one myself in the past).
What are the grounds on which Betfair voids the bet?
Well they wouldn't unless... as I edited the post after to clarify, July layers would have to go to IBAS and point out the breach of rule 4a as @noneoftheabove mentioned for any lays on May 21st.
I can see that it falls foul of the spirit of 4a, but 4a needs to have statutory force or be incorporated into the contract and I don't see how that has happened. It's just a thing the GC doesn't much like the look of.
Comments
Per capita, considering our population growth, we've had an even bigger fall in consumption.
But we need to do more on consumption. Encouraging the switch to cleaner technologies, and ensuring they're affordable.
Heresy. Burn the witch!!
The economic costs for wind turbines etc, which is essentially electricity at next to no marginal cost of consumption, is fantastic.
The fact they need to be backed by gas currently, but won't in the future, is neither here nor there. They're still both cheaper and cleaner.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The ones here are of course legally trivial; it's in the big bank/finance fraud cases (LIBOR for example) etc that the lawyers, quite properly, pile in.
What I don't understand is what transactions the Gambling Commission looks at and why. With jockeys and footballers betting is presumably against the rules of the professional body but why monitor the political class?
And the other thing that strikes me is the eerie parallel between rishi's nobody angrier than me spiel last night and Johnson when the parties first came to light. People don't learn.
Sunak
Favourable: 19% (no change from 12-13 Jun)
Unfavourable: 75% (=)
Starmer
Favourable: 39% (+2)
Unfavourable: 52% (=)
https://x.com/yougov/status/1804076127213777127
To me suggests the drop in Labour vote is tactical.
Reflecting on the prospects of Reform UK, it occurs to me that Nigel Farage should hope that he is the only Reform MP elected. Because if there are two or more of them, the Reform parliamentary party will split at some point during the next parliament. That is a firm prediction.
If Barty kept buying cars which doubled his mileage on the same amount of fuel each time, then yes, I'd agree...
It is pretty clear no charges will be brought on the politicians on the cheating in gambling charge.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/j16ev64qyf6l/4KPgzbWpVpd5ZPsE444S9F/f4c8a91df1d3e578d698a6fbd24c5a55/Misuse-of-inside-information.pdf
It clearly comes under their category 4 Restricted Information:
"This is information which the individual has gained because of their role in connection
with the sport or event; or because of a close association with an individual with such a
connection. This information is then used for financial gain or passed onto a third party.
For example:
a. A club official with advance information about a team line-up that has not been
made public;
b. A club official with inside knowledge of the club manager leaving his position
who uses or passes on this information to a third party for betting purposes
c. An employee working on a television competition (eg TV talent or reality
competitions) with advance knowledge of the health of a competitor,
participation in a TV show or of early phone results.
d. An employee of a licensed betting operator who becomes aware of information
relating to an event and uses the information for commercial advantage
e. An employee of a licensed betting operator uses information about unusual
betting patterns to place a bet and does not take the appropriate action to
notify their employers."
and the action is:
"The Commission would have concerns in this area.
In most cases, the appropriate form of sanction
would be through the Sports Body or through the
employer, combined with the betting operator
refusing the bet under contractual terms.
The Commission may consider taking action to void a bet."
----
The next level up, 5, cases would start being considered for prosection.
The biggest mistake the rush to renewables made was piling in before a form of cheap, energy dense electrical storage was invented. Thats where all the billions of subsidies should have gone.
The developments in battery efficiency are welcome but not the game changer that is needed.
There is also the slight matter of where all the copper for these systems /electric vehicles etc is going to come from.
I had said a few days ago that I didn't expect much to change in this last couple of weeks, but having seen a fair few memes about the insider betting scandal flying around I think that will depress Tory vote a little further.
I hope the selfish morons responsible, even if they don't find themselves in legal trouble, really think about the impact their actions have had on the party they purport to represent, and on the country which deserves a credible political opposition.
Level 5 is Awareness of Possible Criminality:
"This could be described as ‘getting in on the act’ ie where an individual spots some
potential criminality and attempts to use that information to place bets. It could also
cover an individual who becomes aware of a malfunction in processes which enables
them to have prior knowledge of the outcome of an event:
a. A trader spotting a strong trend of bets contrary to the odds in a location close
to the home of a primary participant;
b. A trader or retail worker identifying individuals connected to a group of players
placing bets on their team to lose;
c. Being aware of an attempt to dishonestly manipulate betting odds or an event.
They are not part of this attempt or have not initiated or paid for this
manipulation to occur but have become aware of the attempt through their role.
d. Becoming aware of a breach in sports rules which provides an advantage to
those with advance knowledge – eg knowing that a participant intends to pull
out of a tournament or event despite a public commitment to participate.
e. Commonly, the Commission would identify this behaviour when an employee
of a betting operator fails to protect the operator from exposure to risk and fails
to make a 15.1 report, and instead gains from making bets using the
information."
The UK is currently consuming 30.43 GW of electricity.
The UK has 33.5 million cars on the road. Switching them all to electric vehicles, at an average of 60 kWh per vehicle, would mean 1,980 GWh of battery storage in EVs alone.
More than enough to consume any wind that is blowing at any time.
"For 35 years, juries hearing cases involving dishonesty have been told that defendants should only be found guilty on the basis of the two-stage test set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982]. The first stage in that test is whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people. The second stage is that the defendant must have realised ordinary and honest people would regard his/her behavior as being dishonest. However, in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd Crockfords, the Supreme Court removed the second stage of this test, therefore making what the defendant thought about how others would regard his actions as irrelevant. Instead, all cases should now be determined on an objective basis of whether the defendant’s conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary people."
https://www.reeds.co.uk/insight/landmark-judgement-redefines-meaning-dishonesty/
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
And cutting off our nose to spite our face in cutting our production of oil, which can feed plastics etc as you say, is also playing into Putin's hands as you know.
We should be investing in renewables and our own oil. We should be investing in divesting from burning oil, as well as ensuring we don't need oil from Putin or OPEC.
The whole pantomime audience schtick on QT and the like gets very old.
Also, good luck with finding the copper to fit out the cars, their charging systems, and upgrading the last mile grid to cope.
Not to mention the minerals for the batteries.
The problem with the law is not judicial quality, I doubt if it has evr been higher; it is equal access, for as we know, like the Ritz Hotel, our courts are open to all.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/dec/23/kieran-trippier-banned-for-10-weeks-for-breaching-fa-betting-rules-atletico-madrid
I'd also note that even without renewables, some power plants will necessarily be idle for most of the time given the daily and yearly fluctuations in electricity consumption.
Batteries are rubbish.
All the billions spent on renewables subsidies should have gone on a research programme to develop a cheap, stable, energy dense storage method for electricity.
We put the cart before the horse and enriched a vast amount of spivs along the way.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
Anyone who laid a July election on I think May 21st ? might have to ask IBAS nicely first though for that to be instigated.
But that doesn't stop them from being political.
The difference is we know the political beliefs of the scotus judges but we don't for the scotuk judges.
The advantage in the UK isn't in any higher quality of our judges its that they have less power compared with those in the USA.
Otherwise after a national grid collapse (as happened in the 1987 storm) you would never be able to charge it (switch it on) again.
That is why Hinckley Point etc are being built at such eyewatering costs.
The local Greens are strong advocates of target-to-win and they saw an opportunity here. They threw the kitchen sink at it (and why not?)
Their leaflets were "It's between [Green candidate] and just another Lib Dem councillor - the Tories can't win here" (with no mention of Labour), and they canvassed, leafleted like, well, us, and went for posters and stakeboards. Including some naughty posters attached to lampposts at the last minute that couldn't be taken down in time. [The "the Tories can't win here" line almost ended up being horribly ironic, as it turns out."]
It's also the first time I've ever known every party have an active GOTV operation in Sutton Courtenay. All four parties were knocking on doors in Sutton Courtenay village until gone 8pm (I should know; I was the teller at the Village Hall. Only teller there, so the other three parties were knocking up blind). Turnout went from around PCC-election-rates to normal-district-council-election-rates at about 7.15 and held there for a while, and several voters mentioned to me that they'd had knocks on the door.
The county division is traditionally close - this is the fourth election since its creation in 2013, and this is actually only the third-closest result. The district ward was traditionally safe Tory, with LDs nowhere (and Labour way back when, from 1979-2003), but Richard stormed it in 2019, riding the perfect wave of massive Tory unpopularity and his own personal vote as county councillor. Holding it with the LDem/Green vote splitting like that' losing Richard's personal vote, and Labour poking their head in was actually a huge relief.
Taking an overview I can't help thinking one of his masterstrokes will be seen to be the appointment of his chief of staff. One of those figures that have passed under the radar.
If you were doing a seven parter on the election that changed the country episode 1 would open with Sue Gray doing her report on the drinks affair at number 10 and Keir Starmer and various dignitaries saying what an excellent choice she is to run the inquiry............
Latest major French poll (IFOP) for TF1/Le Figaro for National Assembly elections (1st round June 30, 2nd round July 7):
Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally on 34%
Leftwing Popular Front on 29%
President Macron's “Together” centrists on 22%.
https://x.com/afneil/status/1804056152084287910
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJIA50E_WKM
The Rest is Politics had an interesting conversation about this. Macron's parliamentary coalition was going to collapse in the autumn anyway. I think he just thought: 'merde, let's roll the dice and see what happens'.
It's what Sunak should've done in May. 2023.
Particularly bad recent examples are the criminalisation of opening accounts in other peoples names, which has been standard practice in the industry for decades and there is no way a jury of gamblers would have convicted.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/19/talking-horses-third-party-betting-gambling-court-case
https://www.legalsportsreport.com/112812/opinion-could-it-happen-here-man-charged-gambling-fraud-uk/
And the planning process takes a fraction of the time that a nuclear plant does.
Batteries have taken an early lead, but if someone develops a superior technology then that will take over.
So it was right to go ahead with wind power before having a storage solution ready. Often the market will provide if you create the market opportunity.
(*Good choice for the country, not for Johnson personally.)
Instead he went at the worst possible time, just before terrible migration stats and with Gareth Southgate as England manager
Out talking to a T about a half-broken boiler last night (not one that I installed), in a house I purchased refurbished for them to rent long-term back in 2016. In Lee Anderson's old area where he was a Councillor. For clarity, it has 3 double bedrooms needed for the mix of kids, and those in smaller affordable houses are like hens' teeth, everywhere - except perhaps where the housing stock is ancient (ie much Victorian or earlier), but those areas are usually gentrified.
I discovered a wrinkle in the Eco 4 boiler replacement scheme regs I did not know about - if you are an owner occupier, all else being equal, you can be funded for a new boiler if your house is a DEFG EOC grade (ie below 68); if you are a private tenant in the same circs funding is limited to EFG grades. There will be different views on that. It's a strange tilt in a scheme which is supposed to be done on a criteria of actual C02 emissions saved. This house is a mid-D on the sheet, probably somewhat higher now since I do upgrade work when convenient - sigh.
Placards - I found 3 or 4 (shortish) streets in the historic Leeanderthal area where 15-25% of the houses in a street have Reform garden placards.
Also dark rumours about Ashfield Independents turning up at Council Houses saying effectively "we are the Council, so you display one of our placards", and of such placards all mysteriously vanishing. Quite credible, but rumours, and quite credible that other parties would create such rumours for reasons.
Welcome to the shark-infested custard of Ashfield politics.
I'm with BenPointer on this. It was going to shit anyway.
Christ, George Thomson is an unpleasant, aggressive person, as well as inept.
(former head of the National Federation of Subpostmasters)
#postofficeinquiry"
https://x.com/MaranelloGTO/status/1804091718540599370
Exam question: Could it be a crime to place a losing bet based on improperly used inside/embargoed/confidential information?
A dangerous game if true. Doesn’t usually work.