December 12, 2009


I don't really join in the Climate Change debate that much here, being a bit more War on terr-r based over the years but I do try and take an open minded interest in all sides and try to get my head round it all. I used to argue against climate change "Deniers" over on Sparkles blog. I felt quite justified just cos the US is a major polluter in anyone's book. I have never held a fully formed belief about the validity of the science, though I must admit I am wavering a bit. My point has always been a simple one- there are no pro pollution arguments. Its a good idea to reduce pollution.

I like going to Climate Camp, I like to experiment with ways of using less energy. I try not to drive if I can cycle or take public transport. If I get a van next year I will try to run it on waste vegetable oil. I am fairly anti-consumerism, I'm not really pro Capitalism in its current form.

Anyway do read Patrick James Henningsen's blog from Copenhagen: Copenhagen’s Climate Change Titanic Heading for An Iceberg which has become an item of debate over at Sparkles place here.



..."A trial could be properly and fairly conducted without a breach of the defendant's ... rights," Judge Timothy Workman said in his ruling at Bow Street magistrates court.

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, now has two months to approve the extradition.

Defence lawyers argued that Mr Aswat should not be extradited becauses he faced an "overwhelming risk" of being held in solitary confinement without trial and cut off from his friends, family and legal representatives.

Mr Aswat did not comment as he watched the ruling from the back of the courtroom under police guard...


December 11, 2009


I don't get this

A plan to allow phone tap evidence in courts was left in tatters today as a review said it was unworkable.

In a victory for MI5, Gordon Brown's proposal to introduce intercept evidence at criminal trials was quietly shelved as a report said it would cost billions. Critics said the decision marked another creeping extension of the Government's secret justice agenda.

It means that potentially important information gained via phone tap recordings and email interceptions will not be available to juries.

Surely if someone implicates themselves over the phone the bloody jury should hear about it. Why on earth not?