It's funny how centrists love to talk about how much they enjoy debate. But in practice they can't defend their ideas against left-wing critics for more than a few minutes without resorting to sneering and derision. They've got no arguments.
Why do you think it's so unacceptable for Palestinians to want to be free in their homeland?
"From the river to the sea" says nothing whatsoever about Israelis, and certainly not about Jewish people in the UK. A secular one-state solution would give Palestinians freedom from the river to the sea.
How so? The principle that it's better to let 1000 guilty people walk free than convict a single innocent person is pretty well respected.
New and emerging? Commercial CCS projects have existed for 30 years. Maybe it's time to cut our losses.
Capture rates are very low. Often well below 50%.
oilchange.org/publications...
It would be better to drop every single charge than to do this.
I'll be biking home so I'll tell you how it goes.
(Fortunately my route is almost entirely on MUPs, so traffic is not a big concern)
Because it does not deliver on what it promises. For several reasons:
-It's too expensive to be economically viable
-It requires extra energy to run
-Existing projects have under-delivered by orders of magnitude
-The stored carbon almost always used to pressurize wells and extract more oil
Reminds me of the thing where the best plan anyone can come up with for the Commanda Bridge in the winter is to get someone called Groomer Dave to take care of it for free.
Dave sounds great. But can you imagine if that was how we handled car infrastructure in the winter?
Better to go big on promoting the alternatives. Cheap, comfortable, abundant, fast, nationalised trains throughout the country.
And creative arrangements to facilitate low-carbon travel to Europe. Perhaps sleeper trains through the chunnel?
Iron-air batteries, plus some level of demand flexibility. Hydro and geothermal to provide a basic level of supply.
Or, if we're really in a pinch, green hydrogen.
Not to mention going hard on arresting climate activists.
Those other European systems are bad. Just because it's the done thing somewhere else doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Maybe not. But the more obstacles in the path of someone like that, the better.
If nothing else, handpicking 12 political loyalists for every trial would require a lot more work than picking a few magistrates for every court.
Greens are feeling very much the opposite of desperate right now. :-)
Evidence that when you interact with someone regularly in the context of your job, you get to know them? That's self-evident.
Because that's not how jury selection works.
Also it's a good idea to have someone whose entire career is sending people away to prison. That is a momentous decision that someone should have to think carefully about. Not something you do every day.
Magistrates will inevitably get to know prosecutors, etc., which undermines independence.
So what happens when PM Farage decides to fire all the magistrates and replace them with his own handpicked goons?
Juries are a safeguard against authoritarian abuses of the justice system.
It's definitely harder to convict an innocent person with a jury involved.
There's also a basic matter of democratic principle. If we're going to lock someone in a cage, there should be some kind of public involvement in that decision. Otherwise the whole system is open to abuse.
What if you were accused of a crime you did not commit?
If you were the one accused of a crime and facing possible jail time, would you be comfortable being tried without a jury?
The solution to that is to increase resources in the justice system so that more trials can be processed more quickly.
Locking up innocent people in slapdash trails serves nobody; least of all victims of crime.
The issue is that the judges are paid by the same entity (i.e., the state) that pays the prosecutor. There's a basic conflict of interest.
And since we've seen this government replace judges on trials that affect them politically, this is a real concern.
novaramedia.com/2025/11/25/a...
Harris supported giving weapons to a genocidal state. That's a simple factual statement.
You have one more chance to actually engage with something I'm saying. If you reply with another annoying gotcha question or irrelevant link, I'm blocking you.
Yes I was just using the shorthand that was in vogue at the time because we don't really have another name for it.
What point are you trying to make here? Spell it out.
My point is that Harris was part of an administration that sent weapons to a genocidal military, and as a candidate she refused to repudiate this or promise to change it. This qualifies as material support for the genocide.
1) Hair splitting. It doesn't matter. The weapons are going to a military run by the conservative government.
2) Both would be complicity but the USA is sending weapons.
3) Yes, lots of countries refused to participate in the War on Terror.
Which of the following do you think is an opinion?
1) Israel is committing a genocide
2) Under Biden (with Harris as VP), the USA gave weapons which Israel used to commit that genocide
3) During the 2024 election, Harris refused to discuss withholding weapons from Israel
