On 7/10/2025 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-11 01:20, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 3:14 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-10 23:39, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 12:00 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-10 15:55, Don Y wrote:
Again, which plants? Was there policy in place that caused this >>>>>>> (if so,
why hadn't ALL plants?)
"...because ‘some operators’ were not complying with the
regulations"
Which?
"The report, due to a ‘confidentiality obligation’ has “anonymised”
information, ‘on most occasions’ at the request of the actors >>>>>>> involved..."
Do you see the pattern, here?
I.e., "Someone was killed. We've spoken to the killer -- who
shall remain
anonymous and promise not to do it again..."
Because if not, they would not have talked and the cause would not >>>>>> be known and corrective action not taken fast.
"Something horrific happened. We've spoken to the parties
responsible.
We *think* they won't do it again but don't want anyone to know who
was actually responsible (as THEY aren't part of the problem??)"
Finding a culprit to sue will take decades (it is another
investigation), and we want solutions now.
So, let's just keep the "bad actor" in the same position of
responsibility
WHILE we are deciding who to sue?
I prefer to have electricity than a culprit.
But you have no assurance that you will *still* have electricity!
If the same "actors" are in place, what guarantee that they won't
similarly screw up next week/month/year? What incentive do THEY
have to "perform correctly" -- if the NEXT lawsuit will be years
after the *first* lawsuit?
If you hide their identities *now*, that doesn't prevent all the
same "anonymized data" from being subpoenaed and introduced as
evidence in their later *trial*. They're still on-the-hook
for their responsibility.
(Ah, but stockholders can continue to profit UNTIL the trial...)
On 7/11/25 02:35, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-11 01:20, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 3:14 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-10 23:39, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 12:00 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-10 15:55, Don Y wrote:
Again, which plants? Was there policy in place that caused this >>>>>>>> (if so,
why hadn't ALL plants?)
"...because ‘some operators’ were not complying with the
regulations"
Which?
"The report, due to a ‘confidentiality obligation’ has “anonymised”
information, ‘on most occasions’ at the request of the actors >>>>>>>> involved..."
Do you see the pattern, here?
I.e., "Someone was killed. We've spoken to the killer -- who >>>>>>>> shall remain
anonymous and promise not to do it again..."
Because if not, they would not have talked and the cause would
not be known and corrective action not taken fast.
"Something horrific happened. We've spoken to the parties
responsible.
We *think* they won't do it again but don't want anyone to know who >>>>>> was actually responsible (as THEY aren't part of the problem??)"
Finding a culprit to sue will take decades (it is another
investigation), and we want solutions now.
So, let's just keep the "bad actor" in the same position of
responsibility
WHILE we are deciding who to sue?
I prefer to have electricity than a culprit.
But you have no assurance that you will *still* have electricity!
If the same "actors" are in place, what guarantee that they won't
similarly screw up next week/month/year? What incentive do THEY
have to "perform correctly" -- if the NEXT lawsuit will be years
after the *first* lawsuit?
If you hide their identities *now*, that doesn't prevent all the
same "anonymized data" from being subpoenaed and introduced as
evidence in their later *trial*. They're still on-the-hook
for their responsibility.
(Ah, but stockholders can continue to profit UNTIL the trial...)
Typical American: Sue! Sue! Sue!
Jeroen Belleman
On 2025-07-11 13:41, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 7/11/25 02:35, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-11 01:20, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 3:14 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-10 23:39, Don Y wrote:
On 7/10/2025 12:00 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-07-10 15:55, Don Y wrote:
Again, which plants? Was there policy in place that caused >>>>>>>>> this (if so,
why hadn't ALL plants?)
"...because ‘some operators’ were not complying with the >>>>>>>>> regulations"
Which?
"The report, due to a ‘confidentiality obligation’ has
“anonymised”
information, ‘on most occasions’ at the request of the actors >>>>>>>>> involved..."
Do you see the pattern, here?
I.e., "Someone was killed. We've spoken to the killer -- who >>>>>>>>> shall remain
anonymous and promise not to do it again..."
Because if not, they would not have talked and the cause would >>>>>>>> not be known and corrective action not taken fast.
"Something horrific happened. We've spoken to the parties
responsible.
We *think* they won't do it again but don't want anyone to know who >>>>>>> was actually responsible (as THEY aren't part of the problem??)"
Finding a culprit to sue will take decades (it is another
investigation), and we want solutions now.
So, let's just keep the "bad actor" in the same position of
responsibility
WHILE we are deciding who to sue?
I prefer to have electricity than a culprit.
But you have no assurance that you will *still* have electricity!
If the same "actors" are in place, what guarantee that they won't
similarly screw up next week/month/year? What incentive do THEY
have to "perform correctly" -- if the NEXT lawsuit will be years
after the *first* lawsuit?
If you hide their identities *now*, that doesn't prevent all the
same "anonymized data" from being subpoenaed and introduced as
evidence in their later *trial*. They're still on-the-hook
for their responsibility.
(Ah, but stockholders can continue to profit UNTIL the trial...)
Typical American: Sue! Sue! Sue!
Jeroen Belleman
Y'all come visit, and see.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 170:46:57 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,559 |