<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo>
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo>
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
On 22/06/2025 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
My own random thoughts:
Anyone can get my dna just by picking up a few skin cells, so it's
hardly private.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
On 22/06/2025 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
My own random thoughts:
Anyone can get my dna just by picking up a few skin cells, so it's
hardly private.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
On 22/06/2025 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
My own random thoughts:
Anyone can get my dna just by picking up a few skin cells, so it's
hardly private.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
GB wrote:
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
Mine is a suspicion that the NHS DNA samples will find their way into
the police DNA database, sounds a much easier change to pull off than
saying outright "everyone will be on the police DNA database"
On 22/06/2025 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
My own random thoughts:
Anyone can get my dna just by picking up a few skin cells, so it's
hardly private.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model and testing it.
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some
discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a >> billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in news:mbr1ifF5qmdU1 @mid.individual.net:
GB wrote:Yup, function creep is almost inevitable.
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
Mine is a suspicion that the NHS DNA samples will find their way into
the police DNA database, sounds a much easier change to pull off than
saying outright "everyone will be on the police DNA database"
Remember when the Police Confederation fought having police officers'
DNA stored on a database for elimination of samples from crime scenes as
a breach of their members' rights?
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
My own random thoughts:
Anyone can get my dna just by picking up a few skin cells, so it's
hardly private.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
IIRC, many years ago, when uk.legal was an interesting and useful group, there was much discussion over a long period concerning many aspects of
DNA databases. One contributor had gone so far as to claim that he could build a DNA model of the UK population, and run tests using it. He found
that as more subjects were added, the number of false positives went up exponentially, such that if the size of the database was doubled, the
number of false hits would quadruple. It could be said that the current
DNA database is held at circa 3m because of this.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the
then current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the
‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model and testing it.
Perhaps someone with a better recall of those discussions could
contribute to the discussion?
On 6/23/25 08:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those
"do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
It is a perfectly reasonable insult.
"Good" tends to be a very subjective metric. The problem occurs when
people try to enforce their own subjective version of "good" upon others
who don't share it. In particular, versions of "good" based on a
religious foundation are often problematic for the non-religious.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some
discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the
then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one
in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially liberal, but
she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
On 6/23/25 08:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those
"do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
It is a perfectly reasonable insult.
"Good" tends to be a very subjective metric. The problem occurs when
people try to enforce their own subjective version of "good" upon others
who don't share it. In particular, versions of "good" based on a
religious foundation are often problematic for the non-religious.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some
discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >>> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a >>> billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially liberal, but
she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some
discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a >> billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those
"do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some
discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >>> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a >>> billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those
"do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
Oh, I see I have to spell it out: the do-gooders may do good, but with unintended negative consequences.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those
"do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
Oh, I see I have to spell it out: the do-gooders may do good, but with unintended negative consequences.
[…]
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those
"do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some
discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >>> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a >>> billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
On 2025-06-23, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/23/25 08:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
It is a perfectly reasonable insult.
"Good" tends to be a very subjective metric. The problem occurs when
people try to enforce their own subjective version of "good" upon others
who don't share it. In particular, versions of "good" based on a
religious foundation are often problematic for the non-religious.
Ok sure, but I think I've only ever seen "do-gooders" used against
people who are doing something which nobody would disagree is good
- for example, this thread where it's being used against medical
researchers.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >>>> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine Action
today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially liberal, but
she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
Indeed. The government has proven many, many times that if it is given extensive powers on the "gentleman's agreement" that it's only going
to use them for a specific, agreed purpose, it will absolutely not only
use them for that purpose and will use them for whatever it damn well pleases.
The main thing that confuses me is that government ministers *always*
seem to think that when they pass legislation saying "the minister may
do such-and-such" it means that they personally can do that thing, and
never stop for a moment to consider that later on it will mean that
a minister from another party who they do not like or trust will also
be able to do that thing.
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
On 23/06/2025 10:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The main thing that confuses me is that government ministers *always*
seem to think that when they pass legislation saying "the minister may
do such-and-such" it means that they personally can do that thing, and
never stop for a moment to consider that later on it will mean that
a minister from another party who they do not like or trust will also
be able to do that thing.
Ministers generally don't think that at all.
They are well aware that it is the office (and not them personally)
which operates ministerial discretion in a legally reasonable way which
will pass muster in the courts. If they don't know that when apponted,
they are soon disabused of their misconceptions by their officials.
But in one case I can recall, you were right. Wasn't there a Scotsman (sitting for a Scottish seat), by the name of John Reid (Labour), who deliberately dragged his feet on introducing the smoking ban in English places of resort, such that England was the last place to benefit from
that legislation?
Reid, of course, was a heavy smoker who, in the nature of these things, didn't give a xxxx for normal unaddicted people who were effectively
banished from pubs, etc, by the thick fog of tobacco smoke then
routinely encountered in such places.
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice systemMaybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal damage
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine Action
today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially liberal, but
she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the
other crew crossed a very major line.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo>
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Quite a lot. And those (not necessarily public) DNADs of other countries too…
On 2025-06-22, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
How is it not incredibly obvious?
My own random thoughts:
Anyone can get my dna just by picking up a few skin cells, so it's
hardly private.
Being able to do something at very large scale enables things that are
simply not possible if you have to do the same thing at individual
scale.
Suppose Reform are elected into government, and decide they want to
forcibly round up everyone in a group which they think they can identify using DNA. This would be a massive undertaking if they have to check
everyone individually, it would take a long time, and could not be done covertly. People would have the opportunity to fight back. Suppose
instead that there is an existing database of the entire population's
DNA. They could simply round up the entire group overnight without
warning and disappear them.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
If the DNA was *only* going to be used for very restricted things to
benefit medical science and individual peoples' health then sure.
But people don't trust the government to stick to their word on that,
and people are right not to do so.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
If you've nothing to hide why do you have nothing to fear?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >>>> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
To pick up on your two questions…
It has been said that if one’s DNA strands were joined end to end, they would stretch a very long way - it may have been hyperbole but ISTR from
the Earth to the Sun was mentioned.
When two different persons DNA are compared, it’s over a length of a yard or two, giving rise to possible unrelated matches.
The actual mechanism of DNA comparisons doubtless is more complex than
this, but the fact that only very short pieces of strands are used forms
the basis for unrelated matches, and can and has resulted in the wrong
person being arrested.
Identical twins have identical DNA.
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those
"do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some
discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the
then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one
in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >>>> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
To pick up on your two questions…
It has been said that if one’s DNA strands were joined end to end, they would stretch a very long way - it may have been hyperbole but ISTR from
the Earth to the Sun was mentioned.
When two different persons DNA are compared, it’s over a length of a yard or two, giving rise to possible unrelated matches.
The actual mechanism of DNA comparisons doubtless is more complex than
this, but the fact that only very short pieces of strands are used forms
the basis for unrelated matches, and can and has resulted in the wrong
person being arrested.
Identical twins have identical DNA.
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put
on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be
done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn
those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies
false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is
- some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits
on the then current database was essentially a State secret,
suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the >>>> interest in building a model and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a
large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who
committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they
search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and
perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then
this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false >>>> hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then >>>> current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 10:52:08 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
Oh, I see I have to spell it out: the do-gooders may do good, but with
unintended negative consequences.
[…]
Or another formulation; do-gooders may do good, but to people the users of the
expression would prefer to harm
On 23/06/2025 12:04, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 10:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The main thing that confuses me is that government ministers *always*
seem to think that when they pass legislation saying "the minister may
do such-and-such" it means that they personally can do that thing, and
never stop for a moment to consider that later on it will mean that
a minister from another party who they do not like or trust will also
be able to do that thing.
Ministers generally don't think that at all.
They are well aware that it is the office (and not them personally)
which operates ministerial discretion in a legally reasonable way
which will pass muster in the courts. If they don't know that when
apponted, they are soon disabused of their misconceptions by their
officials.
But in one case I can recall, you were right. Wasn't there a Scotsman
(sitting for a Scottish seat), by the name of John Reid (Labour), who
deliberately dragged his feet on introducing the smoking ban in
English places of resort, such that England was the last place to
benefit from that legislation?
Reid, of course, was a heavy smoker who, in the nature of these
things, didn't give a xxxx for normal unaddicted people who were
effectively banished from pubs, etc, by the thick fog of tobacco smoke
then routinely encountered in such places.
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to their
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal
damage by
fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by
disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the other
crew crossed a very major line.
Palestine Action is being proscribed for being a terrorist organisation.
"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the organisation:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful
glorification of terrorism), or
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or- organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations- accessible-version
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs Thatcher,
but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they are.
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and legitimate protest.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
On 22/06/2025 20:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2025 07:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
What are the chances of the samples making their way into NDNAD?
Ten years perhaps. Then the anonymised ones from the previous ten
years will suddenly turn up; unanonymised.
I was thinking they might wait 18 years ...
Is the testing proposal designed to enlarge the UK's DNA database?
There's an unspoken angst running through this thread. Could someone
kindly explain what your issues are, please?
How is it not incredibly obvious?
My own random thoughts:
Anyone can get my dna just by picking up a few skin cells, so it's
hardly private.
Being able to do something at very large scale enables things that are
simply not possible if you have to do the same thing at individual
scale.
Suppose Reform are elected into government, and decide they want to
forcibly round up everyone in a group which they think they can identify
using DNA. This would be a massive undertaking if they have to check
everyone individually, it would take a long time, and could not be done
covertly. People would have the opportunity to fight back. Suppose
instead that there is an existing database of the entire population's
DNA. They could simply round up the entire group overnight without
warning and disappear them.
It's a chilling possibility that the British electorate might elect
Reform to power, I agree, but we know perfectly well that totalitarian regimes have been perfectly capable of rounding people up without DNA testing.
DT is having a little local difficulty in LA at the moment, but I don't
think a DNA database would help him one jot.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on
the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
If the DNA was *only* going to be used for very restricted things to
benefit medical science and individual peoples' health then sure.
But people don't trust the government to stick to their word on that,
and people are right not to do so.
The same thoughts led to the scrapping of the proposed ID card system.
Yet, countries that do have ID cards have not turned into totalitarian hellholes.
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
I'm thinking that the recent [Brize Norton] incident was already known to the security
services who decided not to prevent it. This provides the government with
the perfect excuse to quietly say to anyone who wants to know that the UK can't assist in any missions right now because some key assets need to be safety checked.
Cui bono ? and all that.
An original case of a false [DNA] match resulted in the police arresting a paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
On 2025-06-23, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false
hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model
and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large >>>> DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a >>>> crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict >>>> them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to >>>> miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
To pick up on your two questions…
It has been said that if one’s DNA strands were joined end to end, they
would stretch a very long way - it may have been hyperbole but ISTR from
the Earth to the Sun was mentioned.
When two different persons DNA are compared, it’s over a length of a yard >> or two, giving rise to possible unrelated matches.
The actual mechanism of DNA comparisons doubtless is more complex than
this, but the fact that only very short pieces of strands are used forms
the basis for unrelated matches, and can and has resulted in the wrong
person being arrested.
Identical twins have identical DNA.
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a
paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in >> longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
In addition to the good points you make above, there is also the point
that DNA being at a location doesn't prove the person who has that DNA
was ever at that location, and even if they were, it doesn't prove when.
On 23/06/2025 11:13, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies
false
hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on
the then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one >>>> in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a
model
and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large
DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a
crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict
them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to
miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the
same DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Not actual DNA, no, that's impossible. But the way DNA-matching is done
is by taking markers from certain parts of the DNA samples. The
majority of labs in the UK test for a total of 16 DNA markers, but the
more markers that are a match the greater is the probability of the DNA
as a whole being the same, ie the same person.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put >>>>>> on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be >>>>>> done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn
those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies >>>>> false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is >>>>> - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits >>>>> on the then current database was essentially a State secret,
suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the >>>>> interest in building a model and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a
large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who
committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they
search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and
perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then
this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt the defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to their
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal
damage by
fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by
disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the other
crew crossed a very major line.
Palestine Action is being proscribed for being a terrorist organisation.
"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the organisation:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful
glorification of terrorism), or
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs Thatcher,
but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they are.
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and legitimate protest.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 10:52:08 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
Oh, I see I have to spell it out: the do-gooders may do good, but with
unintended negative consequences.
[…]
Or another formulation; do-gooders may do good, but to people the users of the
expression would prefer to harm
That state of affairs would imply that the do-gooders weren’t doing unintentional harm to those to whom they thought they were doing good, and thereby doing unintentional good to the users of the expression who would prefer harm to be done to the do-gooders chosen beneficiaries. Is there
such a thing as unalloyed good?
On 23/06/2025 11:46 AM, Spike wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false
hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model
and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large >>>> DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a >>>> crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict >>>> them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to >>>> miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
To pick up on your two questions…
It has been said that if one’s DNA strands were joined end to end, they
would stretch a very long way - it may have been hyperbole but ISTR from
the Earth to the Sun was mentioned.
When two different persons DNA are compared, it’s over a length of a yard >> or two, giving rise to possible unrelated matches.
The actual mechanism of DNA comparisons doubtless is more complex than
this, but the fact that only very short pieces of strands are used forms
the basis for unrelated matches, and can and has resulted in the wrong
person being arrested.
Identical twins have identical DNA.
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a
paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in >> longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
So it wasn't really a match!
On 23/06/2025 11:46 AM, Spike wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false
hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model
and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large >>>> DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a >>>> crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict >>>> them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to >>>> miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
To pick up on your two questions…
It has been said that if one’s DNA strands were joined end to end, they
would stretch a very long way - it may have been hyperbole but ISTR from
the Earth to the Sun was mentioned.
When two different persons DNA are compared, it’s over a length of a yard >> or two, giving rise to possible unrelated matches.
The actual mechanism of DNA comparisons doubtless is more complex than
this, but the fact that only very short pieces of strands are used forms
the basis for unrelated matches, and can and has resulted in the wrong
person being arrested.
Identical twins have identical DNA.
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a
paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in >> longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
So it wasn't really a match!
On 23/06/2025 12:21 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false
hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model
and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large >>>> DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a >>>> crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict >>>> them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to >>>> miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary number of >> genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no means an
impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
The "same" restricted version of the profile?
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Is that unreasonable?
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
On 23/06/2025 02:24 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to their >>> peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need >>>> to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
damage by
fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by
disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the
other
crew crossed a very major line.
Palestine Action is being proscribed for being a terrorist organisation.
"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an
organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is
proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the
organisation:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful
glorification of terrorism), or
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-
or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-
accessible-version
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs Thatcher,
but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they are.
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and legitimate
protest.
Trespass and criminal damage are not legitimate.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any teenage
doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
The charges is (or will be) trespass in a restricted area and criminal damage.
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to their
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need
to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal
damage by
fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by
disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the other
crew crossed a very major line.
Palestine Action is being proscribed for being a terrorist organisation.
"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the organisation:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful
glorification of terrorism), or
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or- organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations- accessible-version
On 23/06/2025 11:46, Spike wrote:
<snip>
An original case of a false [DNA] match resulted in the police
arresting a
paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment
resulting in
longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
Maybe 5 is enough for an arrest, but 8 for a charge, hopefully with supporting evidence? Doesn't seem too unreasonable if so, but I know nothing of the incident.
On 23/06/2025 14:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Is that unreasonable?
If I object to the perfume a woman on a bus is wearing, can I insist
that she wash it off?
In addition to the good points you make above, there is also the point
that DNA being at a location doesn't prove the person who has that DNA
was ever at that location, and even if they were, it doesn't prove when.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put >>>>>> on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be >>>>>> done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn
those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far
as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies >>>>> false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is >>>>> - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits >>>>> on the then current database was essentially a State secret,
suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the >>>>> interest in building a model and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a
large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who
committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they
search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and
perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then
this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same
DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt the defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public
places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and
intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
This 'mythical hazard of "passive smoking"' - why do you think it is
mythical and not actual?
There's an awful lot of evidence that passive smoking increases the risk
of lung cancer considerably, so you must have simply loads of contrary evidence to support your view.
On 23/06/2025 12:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
In addition to the good points you make above, there is also the point
that DNA being at a location doesn't prove the person who has that DNA
was ever at that location, and even if they were, it doesn't prove when.
It obviously depends on circumstances. When my brother's house was
burgled, the burglar cut himself on the glass where he broke in (quite
badly, poor chap) and left a lot of DNA behind. I really don't think
that the 'when' would come into it.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[…]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
I believe the Typhoon and Voyager aircraft intended for Cyprus had
already left Brize earlier this month to bolster the numbers of those
already there. Perhaps it’s just a case of the perpetrators not being
able to do a web search?
DT is having a little local difficulty in LA at the moment, but I don't
think a DNA database would help him one jot.
Ok. I do. If he had a database which he could query to find all, say, hispanic people and their home addresses, do you think he would not immediately use it to send ICE door-to-door?
On 23 Jun 2025 at 17:03:41 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public >>> places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and
intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
This 'mythical hazard of "passive smoking"' - why do you think it is
mythical and not actual?
There's an awful lot of evidence that passive smoking increases the risk
of lung cancer considerably, so you must have simply loads of contrary
evidence to support your view.
Unless the passive smoking is daily and for many hours the increase is actually tiny. Much smaller, for instance, than the effect of using a wood fire for cooking. And occasional brief exposure is likely to be less dangerous
than wood smoke.
But, yes, there is a small increase in risk (which took the best past of 30 years of research to prove) and that does justify minimising exposure indoors.
But the possibility that the occasional smell of smoke outdoors is anything like as harmful as vehicle pollution is pretty unlikely.
On 23/06/2025 02:24 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to their >>> peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system
has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need >>>> to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power.
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
damage by
fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by
disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the
other
crew crossed a very major line.
Palestine Action is being proscribed for being a terrorist organisation.
"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an
organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is
proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the
organisation:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful
glorification of terrorism), or
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-
or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-
accessible-version
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs Thatcher,
but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they are.
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and legitimate
protest.
Trespass and criminal damage are not legitimate.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any teenage
doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
The charges is (or will be) trespass in a restricted area and criminal damage.
On 23/06/2025 13:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put >>>>>>> on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be >>>>>>> done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders? >>>>>
those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad. >>>>
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far >>>> as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies >>>>>> false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is >>>>>> - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits >>>>>> on the then current database was essentially a State secret,
suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the >>>>>> interest in building a model and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a
large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who
committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they
search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and
perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then >>>>> this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same >>>> DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt the
defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
Not necessarily. Most people would put reasonable doubt at anything
more than a few per cent chance of it not being true. Depending on the number of DNA markers examined and found to match you can quickly
eliminate virtually the whole of the world's population from suspicion
in one fell swoop. And it would be an extraordinary coincidence if more
than one of those who are left had any motivation or opportunity to
commit the offence in question. So, even on its own, it's beyond
reasonable doubt, though there will of course be at least some other evidence, even circumstantial, which will be enough to confirm it.
On 23/06/2025 12:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
In addition to the good points you make above, there is also the point
that DNA being at a location doesn't prove the person who has that DNA
was ever at that location, and even if they were, it doesn't prove when.
It obviously depends on circumstances. When my brother's house was
burgled, the burglar cut himself on the glass where he broke in (quite
badly, poor chap) and left a lot of DNA behind. I really don't think
that the 'when' would come into it.
On 23/06/2025 17:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
DT is having a little local difficulty in LA at the moment, but I don't
think a DNA database would help him one jot.
Ok. I do. If he had a database which he could query to find all, say,
hispanic people and their home addresses, do you think he would not
immediately use it to send ICE door-to-door?
Currently, ICE are targetting the illegals
at work. I suspect that's more specific than targeting all hispanic
people, as the majority are legal.
What's more, the illegals wouldn't be on the database, anyway.
On 23/06/2025 01:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and
put on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment >>>>>>> can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the
do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn
those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly
bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as
far as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the
majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies >>>>>> false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that >>>>>> is - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false >>>>>> hits on the then current database was essentially a State secret,
suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence >>>>>> the interest in building a model and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a
large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who
committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they
search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and
perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then >>>>> this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the
same DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt the
defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
How far past sixty-five million is infinity?
On 23/06/2025 18:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 17:03:41 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>> On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public >>>> places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and >>>> intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
This 'mythical hazard of "passive smoking"' - why do you think it is
mythical and not actual?
There's an awful lot of evidence that passive smoking increases the risk >>> of lung cancer considerably, so you must have simply loads of contrary
evidence to support your view.
Unless the passive smoking is daily and for many hours the increase is
actually tiny. Much smaller, for instance, than the effect of using a wood >> fire for cooking. And occasional brief exposure is likely to be less
dangerous than wood smoke.
But, yes, there is a small increase in risk (which took the best past
of 30 years of research to prove) and that does justify minimising
exposure indoors. But the possibility that the occasional smell of
smoke outdoors is anything like as harmful as vehicle pollution is
pretty unlikely.
I thought we were talking about pubs, and the risks of passive smoking
there? People often spend hours in the pub on a regular basis. The bar
staff are there all day. It's wrong to dismiss a 20-30 increase in risk
of lung cancer as mythical.
On 23/06/2025 18:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 17:03:41 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public >>>> places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and >>>> intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
This 'mythical hazard of "passive smoking"' - why do you think it is
mythical and not actual?
There's an awful lot of evidence that passive smoking increases the risk >>> of lung cancer considerably, so you must have simply loads of contrary
evidence to support your view.
Unless the passive smoking is daily and for many hours the increase is
actually tiny. Much smaller, for instance, than the effect of using a wood >> fire for cooking. And occasional brief exposure is likely to be less dangerous
than wood smoke.
But, yes, there is a small increase in risk (which took the best past of 30 >> years of research to prove) and that does justify minimising exposure indoors.
But the possibility that the occasional smell of smoke outdoors is anything
like as harmful as vehicle pollution is pretty unlikely.
I thought we were talking about pubs, and the risks of passive smoking
there? People often spend hours in the pub on a regular basis. The bar
staff are there all day. It's wrong to dismiss a 20-30 increase in risk
of lung cancer as mythical.
On 2025-06-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 18:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 17:03:41 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public >>>>> places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and >>>>> intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
This 'mythical hazard of "passive smoking"' - why do you think it is
mythical and not actual?
There's an awful lot of evidence that passive smoking increases the risk >>>> of lung cancer considerably, so you must have simply loads of contrary >>>> evidence to support your view.
Unless the passive smoking is daily and for many hours the increase is
actually tiny. Much smaller, for instance, than the effect of using a wood >>> fire for cooking. And occasional brief exposure is likely to be less
dangerous than wood smoke.
But, yes, there is a small increase in risk (which took the best past
of 30 years of research to prove) and that does justify minimising
exposure indoors. But the possibility that the occasional smell of
smoke outdoors is anything like as harmful as vehicle pollution is
pretty unlikely.
I thought we were talking about pubs, and the risks of passive smoking
there? People often spend hours in the pub on a regular basis. The bar
staff are there all day. It's wrong to dismiss a 20-30 increase in risk
of lung cancer as mythical.
I wonder how much less than 30 years it would have taken to prove it,
if there hadn't been an enormous amount of money being spent to ensure
it was never proven.
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took
the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out
by the UK government.
On 23/06/2025 17:27, The Todal wrote:
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took
the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out
by the UK government.
Does the UK government itself export military equipment to Israel? Or,
do you mean it permits weapons manufacturing companies to sell arms to Israel?
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of
an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint
into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
On 23/06/2025 17:27, The Todal wrote:
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took
the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out
by the UK government.
Does the UK government itself export military equipment to Israel? Or,
do you mean it permits weapons manufacturing companies to sell arms to Israel?
On 2025-06-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
DT is having a little local difficulty in LA at the moment, but I don't
think a DNA database would help him one jot.
Ok. I do. If he had a database which he could query to find all, say, hispanic people and their home addresses, do you think he would not immediately use it to send ICE door-to-door?
On 23/06/2025 11:46, Spike wrote:
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a
paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in >> longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
Why was the paraplegic's DNA available for matching anyway?
Convicted of an offence before being injured falling from a height?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 11:46 AM, Spike wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>>>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders? >>>>>
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far >>>> as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false
hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model
and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large >>>>> DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a >>>>> crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict >>>>> them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to >>>>> miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same >>>> DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
To pick up on your two questions…
It has been said that if one’s DNA strands were joined end to end, they >>> would stretch a very long way - it may have been hyperbole but ISTR from >>> the Earth to the Sun was mentioned.
When two different persons DNA are compared, it’s over a length of a yard >>> or two, giving rise to possible unrelated matches.
The actual mechanism of DNA comparisons doubtless is more complex than
this, but the fact that only very short pieces of strands are used forms >>> the basis for unrelated matches, and can and has resulted in the wrong
person being arrested.
Identical twins have identical DNA.
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a
paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in >>> longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
So it wasn't really a match!
Only by the inadequate standards of the day!
On 23/06/2025 14:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Is that unreasonable?
If I object to the perfume a woman on a bus is wearing, can I insist
that she wash it off?
On 23/06/2025 16:30, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 02:24 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system >>>>> has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need >>>>> to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power. >>>>>
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
their
peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal
damage by
fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by
disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the
other
crew crossed a very major line.
Palestine Action is being proscribed for being a terrorist organisation. >>>
"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an
organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is
proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the
organisation:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful
glorification of terrorism), or
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-
or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-
accessible-version
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs Thatcher,
but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they are.
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and legitimate >>> protest.
Trespass and criminal damage are not legitimate.
It is not necessary to ban Palestine Action and make it unlawful to be a member of that organisation, in order to punish trespass and criminal
damage.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any teenage >>> doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
The charges is (or will be) trespass in a restricted area and criminal
damage.
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took
the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out
by the UK government.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 18:01:13 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 12:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
In addition to the good points you make above, there is also the point
that DNA being at a location doesn't prove the person who has that DNA
was ever at that location, and even if they were, it doesn't prove when.
It obviously depends on circumstances. When my brother's house was
burgled, the burglar cut himself on the glass where he broke in (quite
badly, poor chap) and left a lot of DNA behind. I really don't think
that the 'when' would come into it.
The 'when' would come into it if, for instance, a corrupt police officer obtained some of his blood from forensic specimen and spread it on the window the next day. I am sure you can think of other possibilities.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 20:45:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 17:27, The Todal wrote:
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took >>> the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out >>> by the UK government.
Does the UK government itself export military equipment to Israel? Or,
do you mean it permits weapons manufacturing companies to sell arms to
Israel?
Since our weapons companies are all closely linked with the Ministry of Defence by contracts for most of their R & D and much of their production it would seem to be a somewhat academic question. I think "military-industrial complex" is the usual expression.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 18:30:11 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 18:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 17:03:41 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public >>>>> places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and >>>>> intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
This 'mythical hazard of "passive smoking"' - why do you think it is
mythical and not actual?
There's an awful lot of evidence that passive smoking increases the risk >>>> of lung cancer considerably, so you must have simply loads of contrary >>>> evidence to support your view.
Unless the passive smoking is daily and for many hours the increase is
actually tiny. Much smaller, for instance, than the effect of using a wood >>> fire for cooking. And occasional brief exposure is likely to be less dangerous
than wood smoke.
But, yes, there is a small increase in risk (which took the best past of 30 >>> years of research to prove) and that does justify minimising exposure indoors.
But the possibility that the occasional smell of smoke outdoors is anything
like as harmful as vehicle pollution is pretty unlikely.
I thought we were talking about pubs, and the risks of passive smoking
there? People often spend hours in the pub on a regular basis. The bar
staff are there all day. It's wrong to dismiss a 20-30 increase in risk
of lung cancer as mythical.
Which is probably why I said "Unless the passive smoking is daily and for many
hours" it is unlikely to be significant. It is then significant, though it is an increase in a low risk in non-smokers.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 13:31:30 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 11:46 AM, Spike wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn those >>>>> "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad.
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put on >>>>>>> the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be done? >>>>>>> It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders? >>>>>
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they
are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far >>>> as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies false
hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is - some >>>>>> discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits on the then
current database was essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a
billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model
and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a large >>>>> DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who committed a >>>>> crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they search the
database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and perhaps convict >>>>> them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then this will lead to >>>>> miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other
than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same >>>> DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
To pick up on your two questions…
It has been said that if one’s DNA strands were joined end to end, they >>> would stretch a very long way - it may have been hyperbole but ISTR from >>> the Earth to the Sun was mentioned.
When two different persons DNA are compared, it’s over a length of a yard >>> or two, giving rise to possible unrelated matches.
The actual mechanism of DNA comparisons doubtless is more complex than
this, but the fact that only very short pieces of strands are used forms >>> the basis for unrelated matches, and can and has resulted in the wrong
person being arrested.
Identical twins have identical DNA.
An original case of a false match resulted in the police arresting a
paraplegic in a wheelchair for cat burglary, the embarrassment resulting in >>> longer DNA segments being used for comparison, going from 5 units to 8.
So it wasn't really a match!
It *was* really a match, at the level of accuracy the system was using at the time. DNA isn't some mystical supernatural trick, it is as precise as the designers of the test, balancing accuracy against cost, make it. Any practical
test has a calculable likelihood of matching the wrong person.
On 23/06/2025 17:34, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Is that unreasonable?
If I object to the perfume a woman on a bus is wearing, can I insist
that she wash it off?
I would think so if it's liable to cause a breach of the peace.
On 23/06/2025 16:30, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 02:24 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:103b3i2$1429a$1@dont-email.me:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
This involves well understood statistics. The criminal justice system >>>>> has traditionally been mathematically incompetent, but it doesn't need >>>>> to be.
I think the actual problem with this is that information hands
government authoritarian power. It weakens traditional checks and
balances to state power. The establishment is not introducing
appropriate transparency or controls, it is just seizing more power. >>>>>
We see how things have changed with plans to proscribe Palestine
Action today. It seems strange to think of Thatcher as socially
liberal, but she didn't proscribe the Greenham Common Women.
their
peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light criminal
damage by
fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of an airfield but by
disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint into its engine the
other
crew crossed a very major line.
Palestine Action is being proscribed for being a terrorist organisation. >>>
"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an
organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is
proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the
organisation:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful
glorification of terrorism), or
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-
or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-
accessible-version
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs Thatcher,
but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they are.
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and legitimate >>> protest.
Trespass and criminal damage are not legitimate.
Nor are they terrorism as far as I'm concerned.
And we have laws already that deal with trespass and criminal damage.
So, why is it necessary to invoke any others?
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any teenage >>> doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
The charges is (or will be) trespass in a restricted area and criminal
damage.
Exactly. Does that justify proscription of the group as a terrorist organisation with all the Draconian penalties that creates?
Anyway, I'm glad that you seem to agree that military aircraft can't
actually be killed with a squirt of a spray regardless of how
over-sensitive and embarrassed those in charge of their security are.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:29:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 01:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and >>>>>>>> put on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment >>>>>>>> can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the
do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn >>>>>> those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly
bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they >>>>> are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as
far as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the
majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies >>>>>>> false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that >>>>>>> is - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false >>>>>>> hits on the then current database was essentially a State secret, >>>>>>> suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence >>>>>>> the interest in building a model and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a
large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who
committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they >>>>>> search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and
perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then >>>>>> this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other >>>>> than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the
same DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt the
defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
How far past sixty-five million is infinity?
Assuming samples of deceased are removed, of course. I'll bet they aren't
- or certainly not as competently as needs be. Especially when you
remember that it was "impossible" to remove DNA samples that had been illegally gathered over years. Because the database wasn't set up to
allow that. Or so the Home Office claimed.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of
an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint
into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint jetted into the air
intake. It is without doubt that it would have been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that caused a military aircraft to be
disabled. That is one very serious line to cross.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 17:03:41 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other public >>> places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive smoking", and
intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they don't like.
This 'mythical hazard of "passive smoking"' - why do you think it is
mythical and not actual?
There's an awful lot of evidence that passive smoking increases the risk
of lung cancer considerably, so you must have simply loads of contrary
evidence to support your view.
Unless the passive smoking is daily and for many hours the increase is actually tiny. Much smaller, for instance, than the effect of using a wood fire for cooking. And occasional brief exposure is likely to be less dangerous
than wood smoke.
But, yes, there is a small increase in risk (which took the best past of 30 years of research to prove) and that does justify minimising exposure indoors.
But the possibility that the occasional smell of smoke outdoors is anything like as harmful as vehicle pollution is pretty unlikely.
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error down
to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-evidence-works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamination%20of%20samples.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 17:47:57 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 13:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as they >>>>> are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all - as far >>>>> as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the majority. >>>>>>
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn >>>>>> those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly bad. >>>>>
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and put >>>>>>>> on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment can be >>>>>>>> done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the do-gooders? >>>>>>
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that implies >>>>>>> false hits will be about 12 times the current level, whatever that is >>>>>>> - some discussion at the time suggested the actual rate of false hits >>>>>>> on the then current database was essentially a State secret,
suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ claims were unrealistic, hence the
interest in building a model and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a
large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who
committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they >>>>>> search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and
perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, then >>>>>> this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person (other >>>>> than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the same >>>>> DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt the
defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
Not necessarily. Most people would put reasonable doubt at anything
more than a few per cent chance of it not being true. Depending on the
number of DNA markers examined and found to match you can quickly
eliminate virtually the whole of the world's population from suspicion
in one fell swoop. And it would be an extraordinary coincidence if more
than one of those who are left had any motivation or opportunity to
commit the offence in question. So, even on its own, it's beyond
reasonable doubt, though there will of course be at least some other
evidence, even circumstantial, which will be enough to confirm it.
But that is simply not how they do it. They decide in advance how many markers
to use and that is what they store and that is what they compare with. It might be possible to take the DNA specimen from the crime scene and the suspect's DNA and do further comparisons but that is not what they do. I can think of a number of reasons why they don't, and why it would introduce further opportunitie for error, but in fact they don't do it.
time. DNA isn't some mystical supernatural trick, it is as precise as the designers of the test, balancing accuracy against cost, make it. Any practical
test has a calculable likelihood of matching the wrong person.
On 23/06/2025 05:55 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 17:34, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they >>>>> don't like.
Is that unreasonable?
If I object to the perfume a woman on a bus is wearing, can I insist
that she wash it off?
I would think so if it's liable to cause a breach of the peace.
She can be asked to wash it off irrespective of any possibility of a
breach of the peace.
Whether she does so is up to her.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 20:45:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 17:27, The Todal wrote:
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took >>> the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out >>> by the UK government.
Does the UK government itself export military equipment to Israel? Or,
do you mean it permits weapons manufacturing companies to sell arms to
Israel?
Since our weapons companies are all closely linked with the Ministry of Defence by contracts for most of their R & D and much of their production it would seem to be a somewhat academic question. I think "military-industrial complex" is the usual expression.
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error
down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-evidence-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamination%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of
an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint
into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint jetted into the air
intake. It is without doubt that it would have been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a contamination
and so the group
acted in a deliberate manner that caused a military aircraft to be
disabled. That is one very serious line to cross.
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion
of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
On 23/06/2025 05:27 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 23/06/2025 16:30, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 02:24 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs Thatcher, >>>> but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they are. >>>>
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and
legitimate protest.
Trespass and criminal damage are not legitimate.
It is not necessary to ban Palestine Action and make it unlawful to be a
member of that organisation, in order to punish trespass and criminal
damage.
But there will be other additional reasons.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
The charges is (or will be) trespass in a restricted area and criminal
damage.
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took
the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out
by the UK government.
That is not a defence available in law*, even if a jury might perversely accept it.
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to wriggle
out of.
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Roy Castle apparently disagreed, likely with good cause:
"Castle was diagnosed with lung cancer in early 1992, and was told that his chances of recovery were slim and that it was unlikely that he would live
for more than six months.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion
of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Trespass and criminal damage are not legitimate.
It is not necessary to ban Palestine Action and make it unlawful to be a member of that organisation, in order to punish trespass and criminal
damage.
On 2025-06-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 17:27, The Todal wrote:
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took >>> the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out >>> by the UK government.
Does the UK government itself export military equipment to Israel? Or,
do you mean it permits weapons manufacturing companies to sell arms to
Israel?
What's the relevant difference?
On 23/06/2025 06:17 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:29:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 01:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or
predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and >>>>>>>>> put on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment >>>>>>>>> can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the
do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn >>>>>>> those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly >>>>>>> bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as
they are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all >>>>>> - as far as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the >>>>>> majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that
implies false hits will be about 12 times the current level,
whatever that is - some discussion at the time suggested the
actual rate of false hits on the then current database was
essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ >>>>>>>> claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>>>>>>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a >>>>>>> large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who >>>>>>> committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they >>>>>>> search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and >>>>>>> perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi,
then this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person
(other than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the >>>>>> same DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary
number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no
means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt
the defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
How far past sixty-five million is infinity?
Assuming samples of deceased are removed, of course. I'll bet they
aren't - or certainly not as competently as needs be. Especially when
you remember that it was "impossible" to remove DNA samples that had
been illegally gathered over years. Because the database wasn't set up
to allow that. Or so the Home Office claimed.
Sorry... some obvious confusion there.
My question was: "How far past sixty-five million is infinity?".
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other people
- the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before time.
On 24/06/2025 08:55, The Todal wrote:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
I'm not sure whether the individuals concerned can be found, but even if
they could be, there's no way they could pay for a couple of new
engines. (£20m each say.) That's an awful lot of damage been done.
So, when you say "at considerable expense" there's probably a few verys missing.
If they had contented themselves with spraying slogans on the wings or fuselage, I'd have had more sympathy.
On 23/06/2025 21:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 17:27, The Todal wrote:
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they
took
the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and >>>> the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried
out
by the UK government.
Does the UK government itself export military equipment to Israel? Or,
do you mean it permits weapons manufacturing companies to sell arms to
Israel?
What's the relevant difference?
I was surprised at the statement made by Todal, and I can see that
nobody knows whether he was right or not. I don't think it's crucial
either way, but I was vaguely interested. Sorry if that's offended you
in some way, and I solemnly promise to try to be less curious about
things in future.
Jet engines are designed to be able to withstand things like bird
strikes, volcanic debris etc, let alone a bit of paint, so I don't think
it's as beyond doubt as you say.
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion
of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination
Is it?
Jet engines are designed to be able to withstand things like bird
strikes, volcanic debris etc, let alone a bit of paint, so I don't
think it's as beyond doubt as you say.
Sure, it would be sensible to assess the damage, if any, and rectify
it, but it's not safe to assume that it would be unsafe to fly.
Whilst I sympathise with their cause I cannot condone their methods. As replied elsewhere in thread, their actions amounted to sabotage which
would have resulted in a death penalty if attempted in WW2.
On 24/06/2025 08:55, The Todal wrote:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other people
- the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before time.
I'm not sure whether the individuals concerned can be found, but even if
they could be, there's no way they could pay for a couple of new
engines. (£20m each say.) That's an awful lot of damage been done.
So, when you say "at considerable expense" there's probably a few verys missing.
If they had contented themselves with spraying slogans on the wings or fuselage, I'd have had more sympathy.
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error
down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-evidence-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamina >>> tion%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something / anything to the contrary?
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote inBut let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to >>>>>> their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion >>>>>> of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi supplies from being transported?
On 24 Jun 2025 at 10:21:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error
down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-evidence-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamina >>>> tion%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something /
anything to the contrary?
If the average number of duplicates is 8, then statistical heuristics suggests
there may be the odd person with 50 or 500 duplicates.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:18:28 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi
supplies from being transported?
But that's different. We won.
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (ifWhat, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent
caught).
Nazi supplies from being transported?
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:25:28 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:55, The Todal wrote:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
I'm not sure whether the individuals concerned can be found, but even
if they could be, there's no way they could pay for a couple of new
engines. (£20m each say.) That's an awful lot of damage been done.
So, when you say "at considerable expense" there's probably a few verys
missing.
If they had contented themselves with spraying slogans on the wings or
fuselage, I'd have had more sympathy.
Surely at worst the engines would have to be dismantled and the paint
scraped off? The engines weren't running at the time the paint was
sprayed. I am sure that would be very expensive indeed, but I can't see
why they should be scrapped.
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:25:28 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:55, The Todal wrote:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other people >>> - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at someI'm not sure whether the individuals concerned can be found, but even if
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before time. >>
they could be, there's no way they could pay for a couple of new
engines. (£20m each say.) That's an awful lot of damage been done.
So, when you say "at considerable expense" there's probably a few verys
missing.
If they had contented themselves with spraying slogans on the wings or
fuselage, I'd have had more sympathy.
Surely at worst the engines would have to be dismantled and the paint scraped off? The engines weren't running at the time the paint was sprayed. I am sure that would be very expensive indeed, but I can't see why they should be scrapped.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion
of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in news:mbv50cFqlriU2@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition
to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by
invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by
spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very
major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination
Is it?
It is. I am certain that the engine concerned will not be used in
service again until it has been fully dismantled, overhauled and
re-tested. The likely cost of that will be upwards of 100k.
Jet engines are designed to be able to withstand things like bird
strikes, volcanic debris etc, let alone a bit of paint, so I don't
think it's as beyond doubt as you say.
Are you aware that the acceptance criteria for such ingress is not
for the engine to remain operational but to ensure that the potential catastrophic destruction of the engine does not result in the downing
of the aircraft? No operator would consider an engine safe to
continue in operation after pretty much any engine related incident.
Sure, it would be sensible to assess the damage, if any, and rectify
it, but it's not safe to assume that it would be unsafe to fly.
So assessment would be valid. That would mean that the engine was out
of service for that period and so a military aircraft was disabled by
their actions. I ask again, did you see the video of the actions? A substantial quantity of paint was jetted well into the engine's
interior making it necessary to dismantle the turbine assembly to
inspect it.
Whilst I sympathise with their cause I cannot condone their methods.
As replied elsewhere in thread, their actions amounted to sabotage
which would have resulted in a death penalty if attempted in WW2.
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition
to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by
invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by
spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very
major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not
before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi supplies from being transported?
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using
its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
You didn't finish reading my post, then.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 23:21:26 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org>
wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 20:45:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 23/06/2025 17:27, The Todal wrote:
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives
them the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public
that they took the action they did in an attempt to combat the
genocide of the IDF and the arguably unlawful export of military
equipment to Israel carried out by the UK government.
Does the UK government itself export military equipment to Israel?
Or, do you mean it permits weapons manufacturing companies to sell
arms to Israel?
Since our weapons companies are all closely linked with the Ministry
of Defence by contracts for most of their R & D and much of their
production it would seem to be a somewhat academic question. I think
"military-industrial complex" is the usual expression.
There may be some small firms making things like cattle prods and
torture instruments, but I hardly think the Israelis need help with
that sort of thing. Did you read about the Israeli reserve officer
shortly after the start of the punititive expedition in Gaza started
who was mildly reprimanded for killing a Palestinian detainee by
multiple anal rape with metal objects before he was able to give any
useful information? And, no, I didn't invent it - look it up if
you're doubtful.
On 23/06/2025 21:53, Peter Walker wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Roy Castle apparently disagreed, likely with good cause:
"Castle was diagnosed with lung cancer in early 1992, and was told
that his
chances of recovery were slim and that it was unlikely that he would live
for more than six months.
Esther Rantzen has lung cancer. So what?
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion of
an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying paint
into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was sprayed
into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of holts
scratch-be-
gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint jetted into the air
intake. It is without doubt that it would have been unsafe to fly the
aircraft after the engine experienced such a contamination and so the
group
acted in a deliberate manner that caused a military aircraft to be
disabled. That is one very serious line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other people
- the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before time.
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
Latest from the government is that Palestine Action may be funded "by
Iran". Of course, any organisation funded by Israel is tolerated, even encouraged.
I wonder whether the Palestine Action website will be taken down soon.
Palestine Action is a direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime. Using
disruptive tactics, Palestine Action targets corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex and seeks to make it impossible for
these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians.
Palestine Action have damaged two military planes at RAF Brize Norton,
where flights leave daily for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, a base used for military operations in Gaza and across the Middle East.
By putting the planes out of service, activists have interrupted
Britain’s direct participation in the commission of genocide and war
crimes across the Middle East. From Akrotiri, the RAF have flown
hundreds of surveillance missions in support of Israel’s genocide in
Gaza, and the base is also used for UK and US military cargo transports
to the Israeli military. In a speech to troops at Akrotiri in December
2024, Keir Starmer hailed the troops’ efforts while stating that “Quite
a bit of what goes on here can’t necessarily be talked about […] we can’t necessarily tell the world what you’re doing”. By this point, Israel had massacred tens of thousands in Gaza, the Akrotiri base had
been used to collected up-to 1,000 hours of reconnaissance footage over
the Strip in assistance of Israel.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 23:29:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 06:17 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:29:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 01:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:21:38 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 at 11:13:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 23/06/2025 08:21 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
There are loads of illnesses which have a genetic cause or >>>>>>>>>> predisposition. Why wouldn't you want DNA scanned at birth, and >>>>>>>>>> put on the medical record for life, so that preventive treatment >>>>>>>>>> can be done?
It seems an obviously good idea.
Why wouldn't you want to help with medical research?
Because it might backfire in ways not anticipated by the
do-gooders?
I do love the way that "do-gooders" is used a derogatory way. Damn >>>>>>>> those "do-gooders", going around... doing... good? That's clearly >>>>>>>> bad.
The context of that phrase obviously means "doing good as far as >>>>>>> they are concerned", though not necessarily - or maybe even at all >>>>>>> - as far as others are concerned - perhaps, in many cases, even the >>>>>>> majority.
If in 18 year’s time there will be 10m extra entries, that >>>>>>>>> implies false hits will be about 12 times the current level, >>>>>>>>> whatever that is - some discussion at the time suggested the >>>>>>>>> actual rate of false hits on the then current database was
essentially a State secret, suggesting the ‘one in a billion’ >>>>>>>>> claims were unrealistic, hence the interest in building a model >>>>>>>>> and testing it.
It is certainly my understanding that if the police were to use a >>>>>>>> large DNA database as a blind search, i.e. they have no idea who >>>>>>>> committed a crime but they've found some DNA at the scene, so they >>>>>>>> search the database and if it flags someone then arrest them, and >>>>>>>> perhaps convict them on this basis alone if they have no alibi, >>>>>>>> then this will lead to miscarriages of justice.
Are there some people who have identical DNA to another person
(other than a twin (etc) sibling)?
In particular, are there any known instances of someone having the >>>>>>> same DNA as someone to whom they are not a blood relative?
Note that we are not talking about whole genomes, but an arbitrary >>>>>> number of genes used as markers in genetic profiles. So it is by no >>>>>> means an impossibility that two people may have the same profile.
And - unless you change the law - that will be the reasonable doubt
the defence need ... especially as the database approaches infinity.
How far past sixty-five million is infinity?
Assuming samples of deceased are removed, of course. I'll bet they
aren't - or certainly not as competently as needs be. Especially when
you remember that it was "impossible" to remove DNA samples that had
been illegally gathered over years. Because the database wasn't set up
to allow that. Or so the Home Office claimed.
Sorry... some obvious confusion there.
My question was: "How far past sixty-five million is infinity?".
Which infinity ? There are many.
And I preceded "infinity" with "approaching"
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 05:27 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 23/06/2025 16:30, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 02:24 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't think protests are necessarily terrorism, nor did Mrs
Thatcher,
but this repressive and controlling government clearly thinks they
are.
They bring shame on the nation by suppressing free speech and
legitimate protest.
Trespass and criminal damage are not legitimate.
It is not necessary to ban Palestine Action and make it unlawful to be a >>> member of that organisation, in order to punish trespass and criminal
damage.
But there will be other additional reasons.
Will there?
That's an awful lot of blind trust in the government you're displaying
there. Especially as they don't seem in the least inclined to share
with us, the people, what they might be.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
The charges is (or will be) trespass in a restricted area and criminal >>>> damage.
I think it is right to prosecute the perpetrators and that gives them
the opportunity to explain to the court and to the public that they took >>> the action they did in an attempt to combat the genocide of the IDF and
the arguably unlawful export of military equipment to Israel carried out >>> by the UK government.
That is not a defence available in law*, even if a jury might
perversely accept it.
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to wriggle
out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be
prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate that
any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's
therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they
belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a
peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism offence
with the Draconian penalties that apply?
On 23/06/2025 21:53, Peter Walker wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Roy Castle apparently disagreed, likely with good cause:
"Castle was diagnosed with lung cancer in early 1992, and was told
that his
chances of recovery were slim and that it was unlikely that he would live
for more than six months.
Esther Rantzen has lung cancer. So what?
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi supplies from being transported?
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group and
the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir Starmer has
shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and judiciary to give harsh sentences when he wants it.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:mbvcbkFs142U1@mid.individual.net:
[quoted text muted]We are dicussing the sabotage of a British military aircraft so my
reference was to the penalty they would have incurred had they attempted
that same act in WW2.
On 2025-06-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:18:28 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not
before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi
supplies from being transported?
But that's different. We won.
WW2 was also different in that we were at war.
Also "sabotage" is being used rather liberally here. "Tying the base commander's shoelaces together" would be "sabotage" but I doubt anyone
would ever have been hanged for it, even in wartime.
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to wriggle
out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be
prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate that
any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's
therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they
belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a
peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism offence
with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? ;-)
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in news:mbv50cFqlriU2@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination
Is it?
It is. I am certain that the engine concerned will not be used in service again until it has been fully dismantled, overhauled and re-tested. The likely cost of that will be upwards of Ł100k.
On 24/06/2025 09:12, Norman Wells wrote:
Jet engines are designed to be able to withstand things like bird
strikes, volcanic debris etc, let alone a bit of paint, so I don't
think it's as beyond doubt as you say.
They are tested for bird strikes. Nobody tests them for having paint
sprayed inside. If the paint unbalances some of the fast moving parts,
there could be catastrophic failure. Likewise if the paint combustion products cause corrosion.
At the very least, the engine will have to be very carefully taken apart
and painstakingly cleaned. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a write-off.
On 24/06/2025 11:18 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
[ ... ]
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi
supplies from being transported?
Probably hanged via piano wire in such a case.
On 24/06/2025 11:15, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/06/2025 21:53, Peter Walker wrote:
On 23/06/2025 14:19, Max Demian wrote:
It's the smokers who are *actually* banished from pubs (and other
public places), on the basis of the mythical hazard of "passive
smoking", and intolerant people's dislike of a particular smell they
don't like.
Roy Castle apparently disagreed, likely with good cause:
"Castle was diagnosed with lung cancer in early 1992, and was told
that his chances of recovery were slim and that it was unlikely tha
t he would live for more than six months.
Esther Rantzen has lung cancer. So what?
I don't think smokers should be banned just because their clothes stink, their hair stinks, and their breath stinks. They should be allowed in
pubs, and in fact they are not banned.
Should people be allowed to light small bonfires inside public
buildings? Of course not!
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:48:37 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:evidence-
On 24 Jun 2025 at 10:21:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error >>>>> down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamina
tion%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something
/
anything to the contrary?
If the average number of duplicates is 8, then statistical heuristics
suggests there may be the odd person with 50 or 500 duplicates.
Or to put it another way, the chance of the ID being incorrect is much
higher than the simple-minded one in a billion quoted. I am not
statistically competent (and don't know the data about the distribution
of these markers) to say what the chance of a mistaken ID is, and I am
pretty sure the chance is minute for practical purposes, but the
probability is clearly very much higher than one in a billion.
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK.
On 24/06/2025 11:32, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbv50cFqlriU2@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination
Is it?
It is. I am certain that the engine concerned will not be used in
service again until it has been fully dismantled, overhauled and
re-tested. The likely cost of that will be upwards of Ł100k.
Then it would have been sensible, surely, to put a bung in it secured
with a Krooklok.
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group and
the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir Starmer has
shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and judiciary to give
harsh sentences when he wants it.
On 24/06/2025 11:32, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbv50cFqlriU2@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination
Is it?
It is. I am certain that the engine concerned will not be used in service
again until it has been fully dismantled, overhauled and re-tested. The
likely cost of that will be upwards of Ł100k.
Then it would have been sensible, surely, to put a bung in it secured
with a Krooklok.
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to wriggle
out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be
prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate that
any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's
therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they
belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a
peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism offence
with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? ;-)
No, but then I haven't been that way recently.
Anyway, wouldn't it be good to eliminate speeding motorists and
inconsiderate parkers?
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:28:08 +0100, Pamela wrote:
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group and
the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir Starmer has
shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and judiciary to give harsh
sentences when he wants it.
Interesting you see no rule for a jury here.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:08:55 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
[ ... ]
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi
supplies from being transported?
Probably hanged via piano wire in such a case.
Has that ever been proven ?
I know it's been repeatedly claimed and those claims have been repeated
into the next generation of claims. Along with claims from people who
claim to have seen the footage. However the actual footage remains
doggedly absent.
Was the incident(s) accepted at Nuremberg as fact ? I guess that would be
a good indicator. However I am not wading though those transcripts
myself. If someone wants to assert the fact it's up to them.
(None of which is to suggest that there aren't countless proven examples
of Nazi depravity).
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error
down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-evidence-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamination%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something / anything to the contrary?
On 24/06/2025 01:54 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to
wriggle out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be
prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate
that any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's
therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they
belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a
peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism
offence with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? ;-)
No, but then I haven't been that way recently.
Anyway, wouldn't it be good to eliminate speeding motorists and
inconsiderate parkers?
No.
But it would be good to eliminate speeding and inconsiderate parking.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:24:27 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:28:08 +0100, Pamela wrote:
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group and >>>> the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir Starmer has >>>> shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and judiciary to give
harsh sentences when he wants it.
Interesting you see no rule for a jury here.
Does the jury determine the sentence?
If the jury acquit there is no sentence.
Horse, cart etc.
On 24/06/2025 02:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:28:08 +0100, Pamela wrote:
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group and
the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir Starmer has
shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and judiciary to give
harsh sentences when he wants it.
Interesting you see no rule for a jury here.
Does the jury determine the sentence?
On 24/06/2025 02:46 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:08:55 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
[ ... ]
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent
Nazi supplies from being transported?
Probably hanged via piano wire in such a case.
Has that ever been proven ?
I know it's been repeatedly claimed and those claims have been repeated
into the next generation of claims. Along with claims from people who
claim to have seen the footage. However the actual footage remains
doggedly absent.
Was the incident(s) accepted at Nuremberg as fact ? I guess that would
be a good indicator. However I am not wading though those transcripts
myself. If someone wants to assert the fact it's up to them.
(None of which is to suggest that there aren't countless proven
examples of Nazi depravity).
I certainly haven't seen any footage. I suppose that that must mean that
it didn't happen... or something...
On 24 Jun 2025 at 17:57:10 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:24:27 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:28:08 +0100, Pamela wrote:
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group
and the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir
Starmer has shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and
judiciary to give harsh sentences when he wants it.
Interesting you see no rule for a jury here.
Does the jury determine the sentence?
If the jury acquit there is no sentence.
Horse, cart etc.
That is the advantage of using terrorist legislation, you don't
necessarily have to have juries. For that matter you don't necessarily
have to tell the defendants what the evidence is against them.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:58:26 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:48:37 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:evidence-
On 24 Jun 2025 at 10:21:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error >>>>>> down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamina
tion%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something
/
anything to the contrary?
If the average number of duplicates is 8, then statistical heuristics
suggests there may be the odd person with 50 or 500 duplicates.
Or to put it another way, the chance of the ID being incorrect is much
higher than the simple-minded one in a billion quoted. I am not
statistically competent (and don't know the data about the distribution
of these markers) to say what the chance of a mistaken ID is, and I am
pretty sure the chance is minute for practical purposes, but the
probability is clearly very much higher than one in a billion.
You are touching on the birthday paradox. Remember you are looking for matching *pairs*.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:27:14 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:18:28 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some >>>>>> considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not
before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi >>>> supplies from being transported?
But that's different. We won.
WW2 was also different in that we were at war.
Well the way that armed conflicts the UK gets involved in are not
classified as "wars" is a thread in itself. Especially as there is great benefit to the UK in not declaring conflicts wars.
But what I meant was the UK has not been involved in a war in a domestic sense since WW2 - by which I mean a war that had noticeable effects on everyday life in the UK, and the loss of which could have resulted in us having an externally-enforced government.
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK.
On 24/06/2025 10:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error
down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-
evidence-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamination%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find
something / anything to the contrary?
https://webhomes.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-2-WEB.pdf
On 24/06/2025 02:27 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:32, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbv50cFqlriU2@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft isDid you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds? >>>>>
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination
Is it?
It is. I am certain that the engine concerned will not be used in
service
again until it has been fully dismantled, overhauled and re-tested. The
likely cost of that will be upwards of Ł100k.
Then it would have been sensible, surely, to put a bung in it secured
with a Krooklok.
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
In this case, it most certainly is.
How anyone could suppose otherwise is a mystery.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK.
Indeed. Blowing up a pub would be terrorism. Damaging a warplane is not attacking civilian targets in order to intimidate and bring about political change.
look it up if you're doubtful.
On 24/06/2025 11:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:25:28 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:55, The Todal wrote:
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not
before time.
I'm not sure whether the individuals concerned can be found, but
even if they could be, there's no way they could pay for a couple of
new engines. (£20m each say.) That's an awful lot of damage been
done.
So, when you say "at considerable expense" there's probably a few
verys missing.
If they had contented themselves with spraying slogans on the wings
or fuselage, I'd have had more sympathy.
Surely at worst the engines would have to be dismantled and the paint
scraped off? The engines weren't running at the time the paint was
sprayed. I am sure that would be very expensive indeed, but I can't
see why they should be scrapped.
Neither of us are jet engine engineers (well, you may be, but I'm
not), so there's a certain amount of conjecture. Well, a lot! But,
here's a few questions I'd want answered before flying in those
planes:
I imagine that the answer from experts will be 'dunno' to some of
these questions. This is safety critical, so, lots of bits of the
engines will probably be replaced. And these are going to be the
expensive bits, like the turbines and the gearboxes. It may be more
sensible just to scrap the whole engine.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:22:51 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 01:54 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to
wriggle out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be
prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate
that any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's >>>>> therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they
belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a >>>>> peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism
offence with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? ;-)
No, but then I haven't been that way recently.
Anyway, wouldn't it be good to eliminate speeding motorists and
inconsiderate parkers?
No.
But it would be good to eliminate speeding and inconsiderate parking.
For me, the offences most deserving of summary execution are littering followed by vandalism. If a referendum were held tomorrow on that
premise, I'd vote yes.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:24:27 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:28:08 +0100, Pamela wrote:
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group and >>>> the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir Starmer has >>>> shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and judiciary to give
harsh sentences when he wants it.
Interesting you see no rule for a jury here.
Does the jury determine the sentence?
If the jury acquit there is no sentence.
Horse, cart etc.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:22:51 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 01:54 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to
wriggle out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be
prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate
that any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's >>>>> therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they
belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a >>>>> peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism
offence with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? ;-)
No, but then I haven't been that way recently.
Anyway, wouldn't it be good to eliminate speeding motorists and
inconsiderate parkers?
No.
But it would be good to eliminate speeding and inconsiderate parking.
For me, the offences most deserving of summary execution are littering followed by vandalism. If a referendum were held tomorrow on that
premise, I'd vote yes.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:25:35 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:46 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:08:55 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
[ ... ]
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent
Nazi supplies from being transported?
Probably hanged via piano wire in such a case.
Has that ever been proven ?
I know it's been repeatedly claimed and those claims have been repeated
into the next generation of claims. Along with claims from people who
claim to have seen the footage. However the actual footage remains
doggedly absent.
Was the incident(s) accepted at Nuremberg as fact ? I guess that would
be a good indicator. However I am not wading though those transcripts
myself. If someone wants to assert the fact it's up to them.
(None of which is to suggest that there aren't countless proven
examples of Nazi depravity).
I certainly haven't seen any footage. I suppose that that must mean that
it didn't happen... or something...
I wasn't calling on your expertise.
A few years ago I wanted to reference this in an article. In those days
facts were much more popular than now so I searched for any definitive
and verifiable account that the films existed.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I remain urban-legend sceptical.
We know the Valkyrie conspirators were hanged with piano wire.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in news:mbvfitFsdohU1@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition
to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light >>>>>>> criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by
invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by
spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very
major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not
before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using
its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12
1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
Anyone can express support of a cause of ending the suffering of
innocents in what has become a genocidal revenge spree. It is one shared
by many individuals and non-proscribed organisations. The fact that a possibly proscribable organisation shares those aims will not make my
support of that greater good unlawful.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:mbvcbkFs142U1@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition
to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light >>>>>>> criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by
invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by
spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very
major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not
before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
What, even if they had sabotaged a French railway line to prevent Nazi
supplies from being transported?
We are dicussing the sabotage of a British military aircraft so my
reference was to the penalty they would have incurred had they attempted
that same act in WW2.
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using
its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
You didn't finish reading my post, then.
With the best will in the world it did appear to degrade into a bit of a
rant as I'm afraid you are prone to do on this subject so I drifted off.
Let's not pretend that the UK are the ones directly targetting the annihilation of anyone who once knew someone who knew someone who used to work in the Hama ministry of health or are complicit in the use of
starvation of the people of Gaza, that lies firmly at the door of Israel
and no-one else.
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:37:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK.
Indeed. Blowing up a pub would be terrorism. Damaging a warplane is not attacking civilian targets in order to intimidate and bring about political change.
On 24/06/2025 11:31, GB wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:12, Norman Wells wrote:
Jet engines are designed to be able to withstand things like bird
strikes, volcanic debris etc, let alone a bit of paint, so I don't
think it's as beyond doubt as you say.
They are tested for bird strikes. Nobody tests them for having paint
sprayed inside. If the paint unbalances some of the fast moving parts,
there could be catastrophic failure. Likewise if the paint combustion
products cause corrosion.
At the very least, the engine will have to be very carefully taken
apart and painstakingly cleaned. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a
write-off.
It's a bit of a design flaw if it is.
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to >>>>>> their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion >>>>>> of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using its
military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12
1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
"(a) express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b) in doing so [be] reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation."
You may welcome such a restriction on your historically hard won freedom
of speech, but I don't. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and utterly disproportionate.
On 24/06/2025 15:27, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbvfitFsdohU1@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition >>>>>>>> to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in
light criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by >>>>>>>> invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by >>>>>>>> spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very
major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft
is frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if
any teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of
paint jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it
would have been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine
experienced such a contamination and so the group acted in a
deliberate manner that caused a military aircraft to be disabled.
That is one very serious line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at
some considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved,
not before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain
using its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in
Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section
12 1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
Anyone can express support of a cause of ending the suffering of
innocents in what has become a genocidal revenge spree. It is one
shared by many individuals and non-proscribed organisations. The fact
that a possibly proscribable organisation shares those aims will not
make my support of that greater good unlawful.
You can argue that in court if you like, presumably because of your
belief that you are entitled to free speech, but what the law says,
clearly curtailing that freedom, is:
"A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation."
I think you're doing just that.
Indeed, you specifically said above "I support their cause".
The penalties in case you wish to look at them are set out in Section
12(6) of the Terrorism Act.
On 24/06/2025 15:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:37:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against
the UK.
Indeed. Blowing up a pub would be terrorism. Damaging a warplane is not
attacking civilian targets in order to intimidate and bring about
political
change.
So, sabotage of military equipment is not terrorism? It's certainly an
act of war. I'd have no hesitation proscribing an organisation that
declared war on the UK.
On 24/06/2025 05:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:22:51 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 01:54 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to
wriggle out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be >>>>>> prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate >>>>>> that any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's >>>>>> therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they >>>>>> belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a >>>>>> peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism
offence with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? ;-) >>>>No, but then I haven't been that way recently.
Anyway, wouldn't it be good to eliminate speeding motorists and
inconsiderate parkers?
No.
But it would be good to eliminate speeding and inconsiderate parking.
For me, the offences most deserving of summary execution are littering
followed by vandalism. If a referendum were held tomorrow on that
premise, I'd vote yes.
Without commenting on the penalty being capital punishment, I wouldn't
be far behind you.
The aerosol spray paint can should be a forbidden item. Carrying one
should be an offence unless the carrier can cite a credible good reason
for doing so in the specific cirumstances in which he finds himself.
That would have to involve the paint having been bought (with a receipt available) within the time it takes to get from retailer to home and
being the same colour as a car he owns. All to be verified or no defence.
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK.
Obviously, but Palestine Action has come nowhere near that point.
It would be illegal for me to say that next week, of course.
Were you caused "terror" by the paint sprayed on the jets?
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a
very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
On 24/06/2025 21:03, GB wrote:
On 24/06/2025 15:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:37:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of >>>>> using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against
the UK.
Indeed. Blowing up a pub would be terrorism. Damaging a warplane is not
attacking civilian targets in order to intimidate and bring about
political
change.
So, sabotage of military equipment is not terrorism? It's certainly an
act of war. I'd have no hesitation proscribing an organisation that
declared war on the UK.
An act of war? A small team of enthusiastic campaigners have declared
war on the UK, you reckon?
That's even more ambitious than Grand Fenwick declaring war on the USA
in the Peter Sellers comedy "The Mouse That Roared".
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 18:46:05 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But what I meant was the UK has not been involved in a war in a domestic
sense since WW2 - by which I mean a war that had noticeable effects on
everyday life in the UK, and the loss of which could have resulted in us
having an externally-enforced government.
The civil war in Northern Ireland ticks the first box.
And the fact it was resolved by treaty supports this.
On 24/06/2025 15:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:37:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:Indeed. Blowing up a pub would be terrorism. Damaging a warplane is not
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK. >>
attacking civilian targets in order to intimidate and bring about political >> change.
So, sabotage of military equipment is not terrorism? It's certainly an
act of war. I'd have no hesitation proscribing an organisation that
declared war on the UK.
On 24/06/2025 20:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:Obviously, but Palestine Action has come nowhere near that point.
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of
using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK. >>
It would be illegal for me to say that next week, of course.
How many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage do they need to
do, then?
Were you caused "terror" by the paint sprayed on the jets?
I *was* caused terror by some very poor driving the other day. It's not
a very specific test for terrorism, I'm afraid.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in news:mc048pFvduU3@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 15:27, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbvfitFsdohU1@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition >>>>>>>>> to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in
light criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by >>>>>>>>> invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by >>>>>>>>> spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very >>>>>>>>> major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft >>>>>>>> is frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if >>>>>>>> any teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of >>>>>>>> seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was >>>>>>> sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of >>>>>>> holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of
paint jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it
would have been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine
experienced such a contamination and so the group acted in a
deliberate manner that caused a military aircraft to be disabled. >>>>>>> That is one very serious line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at
some considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved,
not before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain
using its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in
Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section
12 1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
Anyone can express support of a cause of ending the suffering of
innocents in what has become a genocidal revenge spree. It is one
shared by many individuals and non-proscribed organisations. The fact
that a possibly proscribable organisation shares those aims will not
make my support of that greater good unlawful.
You can argue that in court if you like, presumably because of your
belief that you are entitled to free speech, but what the law says,
clearly curtailing that freedom, is:
"A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
I think you're doing just that.
Indeed, you specifically said above "I support their cause".
The penalties in case you wish to look at them are set out in Section
12(6) of the Terrorism Act.
Repeating your previous post without adding to your argument
serves no purpose.
If a proscribed organisation supports the cause of, "peace in our time"
which is an ideal that many individuals and non-proscribed organisations support then supporting that ideal does not make either the individual
or other non-proscribed organisations guilty of terrorism offences.
Clearly proscribed and non-proscribed organisations can support the same causes whether that be, "peace in our time" or, "ceasing the subjugation
of Palestinians by the state of Israel". Whatever you may think,
supporting peaceful causes that may coincide with the aims of proscribed organisations does not amount to an offence under any terrorism act you
may wish to repeatedly quote.
Supporting a cause is not the same as supporting a proscribed
organisation.
I think we just have to accept that these are very precise machines, not designed to have large quantities of paint sprayed inside.
On 24 Jun 2025 at 20:40:32 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 18:46:05 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But what I meant was the UK has not been involved in a war in a
domestic sense since WW2 - by which I mean a war that had noticeable
effects on everyday life in the UK, and the loss of which could have
resulted in us having an externally-enforced government.
The civil war in Northern Ireland ticks the first box.
And the fact it was resolved by treaty supports this.
Some of us may regard NI as more a colony than part of the UK.
On 24/06/2025 18:49, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 05:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:22:51 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 01:54 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to
wriggle out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be >>>>>>> prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate >>>>>>> that any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that >>>>>>> it's therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to
which they belong, meaning that any support for them, including
just going on a peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts >>>>>>> to a terrorism offence with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? >>>>>> ;-)
No, but then I haven't been that way recently.
Anyway, wouldn't it be good to eliminate speeding motorists and
inconsiderate parkers?
No.
But it would be good to eliminate speeding and inconsiderate parking.
For me, the offences most deserving of summary execution are littering
followed by vandalism. If a referendum were held tomorrow on that
premise, I'd vote yes.
Without commenting on the penalty being capital punishment, I wouldn't
be far behind you.
The aerosol spray paint can should be a forbidden item. Carrying one
should be an offence unless the carrier can cite a credible good reason
for doing so in the specific cirumstances in which he finds himself.
That would have to involve the paint having been bought (with a receipt
available) within the time it takes to get from retailer to home and
being the same colour as a car he owns. All to be verified or no
defence.
Yes, I'm sure that would deter terrorists from trying to disable our air force.
On 24/06/2025 05:57 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:24:27 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:28:08 +0100, Pamela wrote:
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group
and the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir
Starmer has shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and
judiciary to give harsh sentences when he wants it.
Interesting you see no rule for a jury here.
Does the jury determine the sentence?
If the jury acquit there is no sentence.
Horse, cart etc.
So did Starman have influence over the jury as well as over the
judiciary (allegedly)
On 24/06/2025 15:23, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:27 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:32, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbv50cFqlriU2@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is >>>>>>> frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any >>>>>>> teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint >>>>>> jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have >>>>>> been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a >>>>>> contamination
Is it?
It is. I am certain that the engine concerned will not be used in
service again until it has been fully dismantled, overhauled and
re-tested. The likely cost of that will be upwards of Ł100k.
Then it would have been sensible, surely, to put a bung in it secured
with a Krooklok.
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
In this case, it most certainly is.
How anyone could suppose otherwise is a mystery.
Anyone with an open mind would regard this incursion as a really good
stress test which has revealed a serious security issue that should be addressed and fixed, with grateful thanks to those who revealed it.
Otherwise, it seems in more serious circumstances our air force could be totally disabled in minutes by 'terrorists' armed with nothing more than
a bit of spray paint.
I've never heard it suggested before though that "terrorism" is simply
an amount of money.
Roger was suggesting that a group could blow up the entire RAF,
On 24 Jun 2025 at 21:03:38 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 15:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:37:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
Indeed. Blowing up a pub would be terrorism. Damaging a warplane is not
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of >>>>> using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an
organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK. >>>
attacking civilian targets in order to intimidate and bring about political >>> change.
So, sabotage of military equipment is not terrorism? It's certainly an
act of war. I'd have no hesitation proscribing an organisation that
declared war on the UK.
I think you seem to be confused about what terrorism is. If we interpret it as
any act of political violence then it is hard to see how any of our military actions could somehow not count. I don't want to minimise the crime at all, but it is not an attack on civilians for political ends.
On 24/06/2025 12:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:There is now a fundraiser to pay for legal representation to challenge
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to >>>>>>> their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion >>>>>>> of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds? >>>>>>
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using
its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12
1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
"(a) express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b) in doing so [be] reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
You may welcome such a restriction on your historically hard won
freedom of speech, but I don't. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and
utterly disproportionate.
the oppressive proposed ban on Palestine Action.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
I'm donating.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in news:mc048pFvduU3@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 15:27, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbvfitFsdohU1@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition >>>>>>>>> to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in
light criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by >>>>>>>>> invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by >>>>>>>>> spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very >>>>>>>>> major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft >>>>>>>> is frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if >>>>>>>> any teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of >>>>>>>> seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was >>>>>>> sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of >>>>>>> holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of
paint jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it
would have been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine
experienced such a contamination and so the group acted in a
deliberate manner that caused a military aircraft to be disabled. >>>>>>> That is one very serious line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at
some considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved,
not before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain
using its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in
Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section
12 1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
Anyone can express support of a cause of ending the suffering of
innocents in what has become a genocidal revenge spree. It is one
shared by many individuals and non-proscribed organisations. The fact
that a possibly proscribable organisation shares those aims will not
make my support of that greater good unlawful.
You can argue that in court if you like, presumably because of your
belief that you are entitled to free speech, but what the law says,
clearly curtailing that freedom, is:
"A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
I think you're doing just that.
Indeed, you specifically said above "I support their cause".
The penalties in case you wish to look at them are set out in Section
12(6) of the Terrorism Act.
Repeating your previous post without adding to your argument
serves no purpose.
If a proscribed organisation supports the cause of, "peace in our time"
which is an ideal that many individuals and non-proscribed organisations support then supporting that ideal does not make either the individual
or other non-proscribed organisations guilty of terrorism offences.
Clearly proscribed and non-proscribed organisations can support the same causes whether that be, "peace in our time" or, "ceasing the subjugation
of Palestinians by the state of Israel". Whatever you may think,
supporting peaceful causes that may coincide with the aims of proscribed organisations does not amount to an offence under any terrorism act you
may wish to repeatedly quote.
Supporting a cause is not the same as supporting a proscribed
organisation.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:58:26 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:48:37 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>evidence-
On 24 Jun 2025 at 10:21:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error >>>>>>> down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamina >>>>>>> tion%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something >>>>> /
anything to the contrary?
If the average number of duplicates is 8, then statistical heuristics
suggests there may be the odd person with 50 or 500 duplicates.
Or to put it another way, the chance of the ID being incorrect is much
higher than the simple-minded one in a billion quoted. I am not
statistically competent (and don't know the data about the distribution
of these markers) to say what the chance of a mistaken ID is, and I am
pretty sure the chance is minute for practical purposes, but the
probability is clearly very much higher than one in a billion.
You are touching on the birthday paradox. Remember you are looking for
matching *pairs*.
I looked up the birthday paradox and the source I found suggested that a reasonable approximation to the size of a group with a 50% chance of containing a pair is the square root of the size of the value space. If you have a billion distinct values then a group of a little under 32,000 has a 50% chance of containing a pair. That assumes a random sample from a
uniform distribution I expect.
I would need to know a lot more about DNA testing, profiling and comparison before knowing how relevant that was.
On 24/06/2025 15:23, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 02:27 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:32, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbv50cFqlriU2@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is >>>>>>> frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any >>>>>>> teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds? >>>>>>Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint >>>>>> jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have >>>>>> been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a >>>>>> contamination
Is it?
It is. I am certain that the engine concerned will not be used in
service
again until it has been fully dismantled, overhauled and re-tested. The >>>> likely cost of that will be upwards of Ł100k.
Then it would have been sensible, surely, to put a bung in it secured
with a Krooklok.
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
In this case, it most certainly is.
How anyone could suppose otherwise is a mystery.
Anyone with an open mind would regard this incursion as a really good
stress test which has revealed a serious security issue that should be addressed and fixed, with grateful thanks to those who revealed it.
Otherwise, it seems in more serious circumstances our air force could be totally disabled in minutes by 'terrorists' armed with nothing more than
a bit of spray paint.
On 24/06/2025 13:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:31, GB wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:12, Norman Wells wrote:
Jet engines are designed to be able to withstand things like bird
strikes, volcanic debris etc, let alone a bit of paint, so I don't
think it's as beyond doubt as you say.
They are tested for bird strikes. Nobody tests them for having paint
sprayed inside. If the paint unbalances some of the fast moving
parts, there could be catastrophic failure. Likewise if the paint
combustion products cause corrosion.
At the very least, the engine will have to be very carefully taken
apart and painstakingly cleaned. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a
write-off.
It's a bit of a design flaw if it is.
I think design flaw is the wrong word. Jet engines are made to very fine tolerances, to perform very intensively and as efficiently as possible. Weight is a significant criterion, too.
So, an engine could be designed to be more robust, but that would be at
the expense of some of the other criteria - ones that matter more in
normal use.
I think we just have to accept that these are very precise machines, not designed to have large quantities of paint sprayed inside.
On 24/06/2025 18:49, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 05:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:22:51 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 01:54 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:41 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/06/2025 23:18, JNugent wrote:
Being a member of a banned organisation woldn't be as easy to
wriggle out of.
I see. You don't think the current laws under which they would be >>>>>>> prosecuted are sufficient then? You think they are so inadequate >>>>>>> that any accused can 'wriggle out' of them? And you think that it's >>>>>>> therefore proportionate to proscribe the organisation to which they >>>>>>> belong, meaning that any support for them, including just going on a >>>>>>> peaceful demo or expressing any support, amounts to a terrorism
offence with the Draconian penalties that apply?
The aim must be to totally deter the criminals.
Then what we need is the death penalty even for 31 in a 30 limit or
parking where we shouldn't.
Seen anyone sitting on top of the Dartford Crossing bridge lately? >>>>>> ;-)
No, but then I haven't been that way recently.
Anyway, wouldn't it be good to eliminate speeding motorists and
inconsiderate parkers?
No.
But it would be good to eliminate speeding and inconsiderate parking.
For me, the offences most deserving of summary execution are littering
followed by vandalism. If a referendum were held tomorrow on that
premise, I'd vote yes.
Without commenting on the penalty being capital punishment, I wouldn't
be far behind you.
The aerosol spray paint can should be a forbidden item. Carrying one
should be an offence unless the carrier can cite a credible good
reason for doing so in the specific cirumstances in which he finds
himself.
That would have to involve the paint having been bought (with a
receipt available) within the time it takes to get from retailer to
home and being the same colour as a car he owns. All to be verified or
no defence.
Yes, I'm sure that would deter terrorists from trying to disable our air force.
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a
very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 22:19:35 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I've never heard it suggested before though that "terrorism" is simply
an amount of money.
It is telling that the 70s and 80s saw plenty of *people* killed by the
IRA. And nothing changed.
In the 90s, there was plenty of expense to the UK from the IRA as they (rather belatedly IMHO) realised the City of London was the UKs soft underbelly. "Pounds not people" may well have been their slogan.
In less than a decade we had the GFA and no more attacks on golden geese.
People who feel the UK government cares about their individual safety
would do well to reflect.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:56:39 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 12:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:There is now a fundraiser to pay for legal representation to challenge
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to >>>>>>>> their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion >>>>>>>> of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying >>>>>>>> paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line. >>>>>>>
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is >>>>>>> frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any >>>>>>> teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds? >>>>>>>
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint >>>>>> jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have >>>>>> been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a >>>>>> contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious >>>>>> line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before >>>>> time.
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using
its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12
1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
"(a) express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b) in doing so [be] reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
You may welcome such a restriction on your historically hard won
freedom of speech, but I don't. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and >>> utterly disproportionate.
the oppressive proposed ban on Palestine Action.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
I'm donating.
But won't that be illegal ?
On 24/06/2025 05:53 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
Anyone with an open mind would regard this incursion as a really good
stress test which has revealed a serious security issue that should be
addressed and fixed, with grateful thanks to those who revealed it.
Otherwise, it seems in more serious circumstances our air force could be
totally disabled in minutes by 'terrorists' armed with nothing more than
a bit of spray paint.
Would it be acceptable if someone broke into your house and later
claimed that it was only a stress test and an ad-hoc training exercise
for the police?
On 24/06/2025 23:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 21:03:38 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>> On 24/06/2025 15:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:37:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 24/06/2025 11:18, The Todal wrote:
You'd like them to write polite letters to the government instead of >>>>>> using direct action. It's the British way.
Forgetting this particular example, there must come a point where an >>>>> organisation takes direct action that amounts to terrorism against the UK.
Indeed. Blowing up a pub would be terrorism. Damaging a warplane is not >>>> attacking civilian targets in order to intimidate and bring about political
change.
So, sabotage of military equipment is not terrorism? It's certainly an
act of war. I'd have no hesitation proscribing an organisation that
declared war on the UK.
I think you seem to be confused about what terrorism is. If we interpret it as
any act of political violence then it is hard to see how any of our military >> actions could somehow not count. I don't want to minimise the crime at all, >> but it is not an attack on civilians for political ends.
How prescient of Parliament then to avoid such semantic arguments by
actually defining what terrorism is in the Act which concerns it, where no-one of course will ever look and to which no-one will ever refer.
On 24 Jun 2025 at 21:56:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a
very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
I am especially charmed by the judicial decision that because the bayonet just
missed his anus and went into his rectum from the side it didn't count as anal
rape. I suppose he should be thankful for small mercies. Under English law it would be a sexual salt, even though he was of an inferior race.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a
very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
I am especially charmed by the judicial decision that because the bayonet just
missed his anus and went into his rectum from the side it didn't count as anal
rape.
I suppose he should be thankful for small mercies. Under English law it
would be a sexual salt, even though he was of an inferior race.
On 24/06/2025 21:38, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mc048pFvduU3@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 15:27, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbvfitFsdohU1@mid.individual.net:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition >>>>>>>>>> to their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in >>>>>>>>>> light criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by >>>>>>>>>> invasion of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by >>>>>>>>>> spraying paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very >>>>>>>>>> major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft >>>>>>>>> is frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if >>>>>>>>> any teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of >>>>>>>>> seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was >>>>>>>> sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of >>>>>>>> holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of
paint jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it
would have been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine
experienced such a contamination and so the group acted in a
deliberate manner that caused a military aircraft to be disabled. >>>>>>>> That is one very serious line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other >>>>>>> people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at
some considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved,
not before time.
It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain
using its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in >>>>>> Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section
12 1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
Anyone can express support of a cause of ending the suffering of
innocents in what has become a genocidal revenge spree. It is one
shared by many individuals and non-proscribed organisations. The fact
that a possibly proscribable organisation shares those aims will not
make my support of that greater good unlawful.
You can argue that in court if you like, presumably because of your
belief that you are entitled to free speech, but what the law says,
clearly curtailing that freedom, is:
"A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
I think you're doing just that.
Indeed, you specifically said above "I support their cause".
The penalties in case you wish to look at them are set out in Section
12(6) of the Terrorism Act.
Repeating your previous post without adding to your argument
serves no purpose.
I just make the point, as forcefully as I can, that proscription of any organisation is a restriction on freedom of speech, even yours, that
should not be entered into lightly or as a knee-jerk reaction to
something the government disagrees with, but only where absolutely
necessary. Which I don't think applies in the case of Palestine Action.
If a proscribed organisation supports the cause of, "peace in our time"
which is an ideal that many individuals and non-proscribed organisations
support then supporting that ideal does not make either the individual
or other non-proscribed organisations guilty of terrorism offences.
Of course it doesn't. But then the organisation will not, or at least
should not, be proscribed, the conditions for which are to be found in
the Terrorism Act.
Clearly proscribed and non-proscribed organisations can support the same
causes whether that be, "peace in our time" or, "ceasing the subjugation
of Palestinians by the state of Israel". Whatever you may think,
supporting peaceful causes that may coincide with the aims of proscribed
organisations does not amount to an offence under any terrorism act you
may wish to repeatedly quote.
That, regrettably, is putting your own assumed freedom of speech above
the law. If the law says you are not permitted to express such views
then you can't.
Supporting a cause is not the same as supporting a proscribed
organisation.
It's hard to distinguish the two sometimes, especially in such an
expression as *you* used, namely 'I support *their* cause'.
On 24/06/2025 19:23, Owen Rees wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:58:26 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:48:37 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>evidence-
On 24 Jun 2025 at 10:21:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error >>>>>>>> down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamina >>>>>>>> tion%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something >>>>>> /
anything to the contrary?
If the average number of duplicates is 8, then statistical heuristics >>>>> suggests there may be the odd person with 50 or 500 duplicates.
Or to put it another way, the chance of the ID being incorrect is much >>>> higher than the simple-minded one in a billion quoted. I am not
statistically competent (and don't know the data about the distribution >>>> of these markers) to say what the chance of a mistaken ID is, and I am >>>> pretty sure the chance is minute for practical purposes, but the
probability is clearly very much higher than one in a billion.
You are touching on the birthday paradox. Remember you are looking for
matching *pairs*.
I looked up the birthday paradox and the source I found suggested that a
reasonable approximation to the size of a group with a 50% chance of
containing a pair is the square root of the size of the value space. If you >> have a billion distinct values then a group of a little under 32,000 has a >> 50% chance of containing a pair. That assumes a random sample from a
uniform distribution I expect.
I would need to know a lot more about DNA testing, profiling and comparison >> before knowing how relevant that was.
Well, I think I can tell you it's not relevant at all. For forensic
testing you start with one fixed sample, and you try to find someone
whose DNA profile matches that. That's like selecting one particular
birth date. No-one is interested in what matches may occur between
anyone else.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 21:53:58 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 18:49, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2025 05:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
For me, the offences most deserving of summary execution are littering >>>> followed by vandalism. If a referendum were held tomorrow on that
premise, I'd vote yes.
Without commenting on the penalty being capital punishment, I wouldn't
be far behind you.
The aerosol spray paint can should be a forbidden item. Carrying one
should be an offence unless the carrier can cite a credible good reason
for doing so in the specific cirumstances in which he finds himself.
That would have to involve the paint having been bought (with a receipt
available) within the time it takes to get from retailer to home and
being the same colour as a car he owns. All to be verified or no
defence.
Yes, I'm sure that would deter terrorists from trying to disable our air
force.
I think the conversation has moved on from the specific case (hence the thread nesting).
We are now onto the broader issue of vandalism generally. With littering being my bugbear.
People who litter are physically demonstrating they have no care for you
or your environment, where your children play and your family live. And
they are saying that to 1000, 2000 people at a time. That is a load of cumulative harm to society.
by comparison a single burglary will only affect a handful of people.
On 24/06/2025 11:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a >>>> very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
I am especially charmed by the judicial decision that because the bayonet just
missed his anus and went into his rectum from the side it didn't count as anal
rape.
Did that decision surprise you?
I suppose he should be thankful for small mercies. Under English law it
would be a sexual salt, even though he was of an inferior race.
If a soldier were shot in the buttocks (by an enemy sniper) while on
active service, would you call that attempted rape?
On 25 Jun 2025 at 09:07:57 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 19:23, Owen Rees wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:58:26 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Jun 2025 at 11:48:37 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>evidence-
On 24 Jun 2025 at 10:21:37 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/06/2025 09:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:49, Norman Wells wrote:
A match of all 16 markers is said to reduce the possibility of error >>>>>>>>> down to one in a billion:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-dna-
works.html#:~:text=While%20DNA%20testing%20is%20not,or%20the%20contamina >>>>>>>>> tion%20of%20samples.
"by some estimates" with no reference.
Well, since you clearly disbelieve it, perhaps you can find something >>>>>>> /
anything to the contrary?
If the average number of duplicates is 8, then statistical heuristics >>>>>> suggests there may be the odd person with 50 or 500 duplicates.
Or to put it another way, the chance of the ID being incorrect is much >>>>> higher than the simple-minded one in a billion quoted. I am not
statistically competent (and don't know the data about the distribution >>>>> of these markers) to say what the chance of a mistaken ID is, and I am >>>>> pretty sure the chance is minute for practical purposes, but the
probability is clearly very much higher than one in a billion.
You are touching on the birthday paradox. Remember you are looking for >>>> matching *pairs*.
I looked up the birthday paradox and the source I found suggested that a >>> reasonable approximation to the size of a group with a 50% chance of
containing a pair is the square root of the size of the value space. If you >>> have a billion distinct values then a group of a little under 32,000 has a >>> 50% chance of containing a pair. That assumes a random sample from a
uniform distribution I expect.
I would need to know a lot more about DNA testing, profiling and comparison >>> before knowing how relevant that was.
Well, I think I can tell you it's not relevant at all. For forensic
testing you start with one fixed sample, and you try to find someone
whose DNA profile matches that. That's like selecting one particular
birth date. No-one is interested in what matches may occur between
anyone else.
I looked at the paper linked earlier describing the statistics of DNA profiling. I can't judge whether it is valid, but it seems respectable. What is clear is that if both the suspect and the actual perpetrator come from an inbred sort of district the chance of a false match is a great deal higher.
They better get their money out from the funding website and to their
lawyer before then, because I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd-funder
gets cancelled by the website / their bank account gets frozen at that
point. The site says "7 days to go" which seems like too long.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:19:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
They better get their money out from the funding website and to their
lawyer before then, because I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd-funder
gets cancelled by the website / their bank account gets frozen at that
point. The site says "7 days to go" which seems like too long.
Well isn't this what BitCoin (other crypto currencies are available) is
for ?
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a
very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
On 24/06/2025 21:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a
very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
Those articles are shocking. However, I'll meet your unlawful assaults,
and raise you lots of murders by the SAS.
I could say "Look it up if you're doubtful", but here's a sample link or
two:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/08/flat-packing-them-soldier-says-sas-described-killing-afghans-in-casual-way
"Soldiers commit atrocity" is so commonplace that it's barely
newsworthy. I'd be more interested in an analysis of why they do it, and
what can be done to reduce the occurrence.
On 24/06/2025 21:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a
very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
Those articles are shocking. However, I'll meet your unlawful assaults,
and raise you lots of murders by the SAS.
I could say "Look it up if you're doubtful", but here's a sample link or
two:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/08/flat-packing-them-soldier-says-sas-described-killing-afghans-in-casual-way
"Soldiers commit atrocity" is so commonplace that it's barely
newsworthy. I'd be more interested in an analysis of why they do it, and
what can be done to reduce the occurrence.
On 25 Jun 2025 at 13:20:56 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a >>>>> very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
I am especially charmed by the judicial decision that because the bayonet just
missed his anus and went into his rectum from the side it didn't count as anal
rape.
Did that decision surprise you?
I suppose he should be thankful for small mercies. Under English law it
would be a sexual salt, even though he was of an inferior race.
If a soldier were shot in the buttocks (by an enemy sniper) while on
active service, would you call that attempted rape?
No, but if a prisoner was assaulted with a bayonet in the perineum (NOT the buttocks, I probably know more anatomy than you) I think a reasonable jury would feel fairly sure that the anus was being aimed for.
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light
criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion
of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying
paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line.
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is
frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any
teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds?
Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was
sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of
holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have
been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that
caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
Latest from the government is that Palestine Action may be funded "by
Iran". Of course, any organisation funded by Israel is tolerated,
even encouraged.
I wonder whether the Palestine Action website will be taken down
soon.
Palestine Action is a direct action movement committed to ending
global participation in Israels genocidal and apartheid regime.
Using disruptive tactics, Palestine Action targets ...
[Palestinian Action claims snipped]
On 25 Jun 2025 at 17:17:47 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 21:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a >>>> very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
Those articles are shocking. However, I'll meet your unlawful assaults,
and raise you lots of murders by the SAS.
I could say "Look it up if you're doubtful", but here's a sample link or
two:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/08/flat-packing-them-soldier-says-sas-described-killing-afghans-in-casual-way
"Soldiers commit atrocity" is so commonplace that it's barely
newsworthy. I'd be more interested in an analysis of why they do it, and
what can be done to reduce the occurrence.
Of course the soldiers at the interrogation camp were not soldiers fighting a war, but reserve soldiers back in their home country who were supposed to be treating prisoners (civilians in the last assaulted man's case) not like mediaeval religious zealots would, or racist nationalists would, but in the way expected within the safe borders of a democratic country.
On 2025-06-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 21:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a >>>> very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
Those articles are shocking. However, I'll meet your unlawful assaults,
and raise you lots of murders by the SAS.
I could say "Look it up if you're doubtful", but here's a sample link or
two:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/08/flat-packing-them-soldier-says-sas-described-killing-afghans-in-casual-way
"Soldiers commit atrocity" is so commonplace that it's barely
newsworthy. I'd be more interested in an analysis of why they do it, and
what can be done to reduce the occurrence.
You've changed your tune - moments ago you were saying it was "very,
very strange" and as likely as the moon being made of green cheese,
now you're saying it's "so commonplace it's barely newsworthy".
On 25/06/2025 19:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/06/2025 21:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a >>>>> very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
Those articles are shocking. However, I'll meet your unlawful assaults,
and raise you lots of murders by the SAS.
I could say "Look it up if you're doubtful", but here's a sample link or >>> two:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/08/flat-packing-them-soldier-says-sas-described-killing-afghans-in-casual-way
"Soldiers commit atrocity" is so commonplace that it's barely
newsworthy. I'd be more interested in an analysis of why they do it, and >>> what can be done to reduce the occurrence.
You've changed your tune - moments ago you were saying it was "very,
very strange" and as likely as the moon being made of green cheese,
It was not only very strange. It was untrue.
now you're saying it's "so commonplace it's barely newsworthy".
No, I'm saying something different.
On 25/06/2025 20:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Of course the soldiers at the interrogation camp were not soldiers fighting a
war, but reserve soldiers back in their home country who were supposed to be >> treating prisoners (civilians in the last assaulted man's case) not like
mediaeval religious zealots would, or racist nationalists would, but in the >> way expected within the safe borders of a democratic country.
I totally agree. You had a good point to make, so why did you over-egg
the pudding in the first place?
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/06/2025 20:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Of course the soldiers at the interrogation camp were not soldiers fighting a
war, but reserve soldiers back in their home country who were supposed to be
treating prisoners (civilians in the last assaulted man's case) not like >>> mediaeval religious zealots would, or racist nationalists would, but in the >>> way expected within the safe borders of a democratic country.
I totally agree. You had a good point to make, so why did you over-egg
the pudding in the first place?
I don’t recall such outpourings of self-righteous indignation when Islamic State groups like those Brits from a safe democratic country who were referred to as ’the Beatles’, later variously killed in a drone strike or sentenced to life, were beheading prisoners.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/06/2025 20:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Of course the soldiers at the interrogation camp were not soldiers
fighting a war, but reserve soldiers back in their home country who
were supposed to be treating prisoners (civilians in the last
assaulted man's case) not like mediaeval religious zealots would, or
racist nationalists would, but in the way expected within the safe
borders of a democratic country.
I totally agree. You had a good point to make, so why did you over-egg
the pudding in the first place?
I don’t recall such outpourings of self-righteous indignation when Islamic State groups like those Brits from a safe democratic country who were referred to as ’the Beatles’, later variously killed in a drone strike or sentenced to life, were beheading prisoners.
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
On 24 Jun 2025 at 13:28:08 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
snip
This sabotage was done in support of a Palestinian terrorist group
and the courts should throw the book at the perpetrators. Keir
Starmer has shown how adept he is at influencing the CPS and
judiciary to give harsh sentences when he wants it.
No he hasn't. The judges regularly do this of their own initiative
and have done so for centuries.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately and genocide ?
On 25/06/2025 20:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Jun 2025 at 17:17:47 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 24/06/2025 21:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Do you see that adding "Look it up if you're doubtful" to the end of a >>>>> very, very strange assertion doesn't make it any more credible?
It might be "very, very strange" but it's not entirely untrue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqldpyn5ng6o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-idf-reservists-indicted-for-severe-abuse-of-palestinian-detainee-at-sde-teiman/
Those articles are shocking. However, I'll meet your unlawful assaults,
and raise you lots of murders by the SAS.
I could say "Look it up if you're doubtful", but here's a sample link or >>> two:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g40x1v53o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/08/flat-packing-them-soldier-says-sas-described-killing-afghans-in-casual-way
"Soldiers commit atrocity" is so commonplace that it's barely
newsworthy. I'd be more interested in an analysis of why they do it, and >>> what can be done to reduce the occurrence.
Of course the soldiers at the interrogation camp were not soldiers fighting a
war, but reserve soldiers back in their home country who were supposed to be >> treating prisoners (civilians in the last assaulted man's case) not like
mediaeval religious zealots would, or racist nationalists would, but in the >> way expected within the safe borders of a democratic country.
I totally agree. You had a good point to make, so why did you over-egg
the pudding in the first place?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately and genocide ?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately and genocide ?
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 14:42:30 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
Or maybe the OED ?
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
Mr Hitler was, you might say, innocent until proved guilty and in fact - in common with Fred West - he died before he could face trial and therefore leaves this world without a stain on his character.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 12:13:15 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/06/2025 20:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Of course the soldiers at the interrogation camp were not soldiers fighting a
war, but reserve soldiers back in their home country who were supposed to be
treating prisoners (civilians in the last assaulted man's case) not like >>>> mediaeval religious zealots would, or racist nationalists would, but in the
way expected within the safe borders of a democratic country.
I totally agree. You had a good point to make, so why did you over-egg
the pudding in the first place?
I don’t recall such outpourings of self-righteous indignation when Islamic >> State groups like those Brits from a safe democratic country who were
referred to as ’the Beatles’, later variously killed in a drone strike or
sentenced to life, were beheading prisoners.
Possibly because ISIS *claimed* to be mediaeval religious zealots, and no-one seriously regarded them as anything else. And our country was already fighting
and killing them, so didn't really need any encouragement. We are arming and supporting Israel and they claim to be a Western democracy. Different situation.
Just for the record, I haven't recently condemned any rapists and bank robbers. But that doesn't mean I support them.
On 2025-06-25, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:56:39 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 12:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:There is now a fundraiser to pay for legal representation to challenge
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was >>>>>>> sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of >>>>>>> holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint >>>>>>> jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have >>>>>>> been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a >>>>>>> contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that >>>>>>> caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious >>>>>>> line to cross.
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to >>>>>>>>> their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light >>>>>>>>> criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion >>>>>>>>> of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying >>>>>>>>> paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line. >>>>>>>>
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is >>>>>>>> frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any >>>>>>>> teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds? >>>>>>>>
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some >>>>>> considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before >>>>>> time.
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using >>>>> its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza.
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed
organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12
1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
"(a) express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b) in doing so [be] reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
You may welcome such a restriction on your historically hard won
freedom of speech, but I don't. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and >>>> utterly disproportionate.
the oppressive proposed ban on Palestine Action.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
I'm donating.
But won't that be illegal ?
Next week it would presumably be illegal. This week not so much.
The Home Secretary has said she is going to lay the proscription order
before parliament next Monday, so presumably the group becomes illegal
from then.
They better get their money out from the funding website and to their
lawyer before then, because I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd-funder
gets cancelled by the website / their bank account gets frozen at that
point. The site says "7 days to go" which seems like too long.
On 27/06/2025 10:34, The Todal wrote:
Mr Hitler was, you might say, innocent until proved guilty and in fact
- in common with Fred West - he died before he could face trial and
therefore leaves this world without a stain on his character.
Mr Hitler did face trial, and struggled whilst in prison.
Fred West also faced trial, and entered a guilty plea.
On 14:34 26 Jun 2025, Jethro_uk said:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
One key difference is intent.
See: "When to Refer to a Situation as Genocide" https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention
Alice Nderitu, the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide,
refuses to call the war with Hamas in Gaza a genocide.
On 25/06/2025 12:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-25, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:56:39 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 12:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:There is now a fundraiser to pay for legal representation to challenge >>>> the oppressive proposed ban on Palestine Action.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was >>>>>>>> sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of >>>>>>>> holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint >>>>>>>> jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have >>>>>>>> been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a >>>>>>>> contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that >>>>>>>> caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious >>>>>>>> line to cross.
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in addition to >>>>>>>>>> their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light >>>>>>>>>> criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by invasion >>>>>>>>>> of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying >>>>>>>>>> paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line. >>>>>>>>>
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is >>>>>>>>> frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any >>>>>>>>> teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of seconds? >>>>>>>>>
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other >>>>>>> people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some >>>>>>> considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before >>>>>>> time.
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using >>>>>> its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza. >>>>>>
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed >>>>> organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12 >>>>> 1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
"(a) express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed >>>>> organisation, and
(b) in doing so [be] reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
You may welcome such a restriction on your historically hard won
freedom of speech, but I don't. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and >>>>> utterly disproportionate.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
I'm donating.
But won't that be illegal ?
Next week it would presumably be illegal. This week not so much.
The Home Secretary has said she is going to lay the proscription order
before parliament next Monday, so presumably the group becomes illegal
from then.
They better get their money out from the funding website and to their
lawyer before then, because I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd-funder
gets cancelled by the website / their bank account gets frozen at that
point. The site says "7 days to go" which seems like too long.
The contributions have now exceeded the target and the money continues
to roll in.
The money is for expected legal fees to enable two excellent and
reputable law firms to pursue a challenge through the courts. It would
be appalling if the government was to confiscate that money or prevent lawyers from challenging government decisions in the courts and I hope
even our current dimwit Home Secretary and Justice Secretary would see
that they would face condemnation from all lawyers and judges.
On 25/06/2025 12:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-25, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:56:39 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 12:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:There is now a fundraiser to pay for legal representation to challenge >>>> the oppressive proposed ban on Palestine Action.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was >>>>>>>> sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of >>>>>>>> holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of paint >>>>>>>> jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have >>>>>>>> been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced such a >>>>>>>> contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that >>>>>>>> caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very serious >>>>>>>> line to cross.
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in
addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light >>>>>>>>>> criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by
invasion
of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying >>>>>>>>>> paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line. >>>>>>>>>
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is >>>>>>>>> frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any >>>>>>>>> teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of
seconds?
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other >>>>>>> people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some >>>>>>> considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not
before
time.
caught).
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain using >>>>>> its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza. >>>>>>
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed >>>>> organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12 >>>>> 1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
"(a) express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed >>>>> organisation, and
(b) in doing so [be] reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
You may welcome such a restriction on your historically hard won
freedom of speech, but I don't. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut >>>>> and
utterly disproportionate.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
I'm donating.
But won't that be illegal ?
Next week it would presumably be illegal. This week not so much.
The Home Secretary has said she is going to lay the proscription order
before parliament next Monday, so presumably the group becomes illegal
from then.
They better get their money out from the funding website and to their
lawyer before then, because I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd-funder
gets cancelled by the website / their bank account gets frozen at that
point. The site says "7 days to go" which seems like too long.
The contributions have now exceeded the target and the money continues
to roll in.
The money is for expected legal fees to enable two excellent and
reputable law firms to pursue a challenge through the courts. It would
be appalling if the government was to confiscate that money or prevent lawyers from challenging government decisions in the courts and I hope
even our current dimwit Home Secretary and Justice Secretary would see
that they would face condemnation from all lawyers and judges.
And nobody would demand that our government should boycott ISIS, stop
the sale of weapons to them, apply economic sanctions to them. Because
such demands would be idiotic, given that ISIS is a terrorist group
which is condemned universally, and our government has never supported
ISIS in any way.
... genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there is
a serious risk of genocide occurring.
On 26/06/2025 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
By your logic it would have been outrageous to have accused Nazi Germany
of genocide unless and until the Nuremberg Trials had taken place, long
after the defeat of Germany.
Mr Hitler was, you might say, innocent until proved guilty and in fact -
in common with Fred West - he died before he could face trial and
therefore leaves this world without a stain on his character.
On 27/06/2025 10:57 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
... genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there is
a serious risk of genocide occurring.
Which is it?
Previously, you have not been quite so circumspect. What has modified
your stance?
On 27/06/2025 10:34 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 26/06/2025 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ >>>>> have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
By your logic it would have been outrageous to have accused Nazi Germany
of genocide unless and until the Nuremberg Trials had taken place, long
after the defeat of Germany.
That would depend on where you were, and how much you knew, surely?
But if it is the case that neither the United Nations nor the
International Court of Justice have established the presence of any
genocide, they are presumably the experts as well as having had a chance
to peruse the evidence.
But some people take the view that they know better than the United
Nations and the International Court of Justice, yes?
Mr Hitler was, you might say, innocent until proved guilty and in fact -
in common with Fred West - he died before he could face trial and
therefore leaves this world without a stain on his character.
If you say so.
On 27/06/2025 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:57 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
... genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there is
a serious risk of genocide occurring.
Which is it?
Previously, you have not been quite so circumspect. What has modified
your stance?
Go on, put your big boy pants on and write to all those judges and
lawyers, with your asinine question. Maybe they'll award you the Nobel
Peace Prize, you never know.
On 27/06/2025 13:11, JNugent wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:34 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 26/06/2025 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ >>>>>> have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
By your logic it would have been outrageous to have accused Nazi Germany >>> of genocide unless and until the Nuremberg Trials had taken place, long
after the defeat of Germany.
That would depend on where you were, and how much you knew, surely?
But if it is the case that neither the United Nations nor the
International Court of Justice have established the presence of any
genocide, they are presumably the experts as well as having had a
chance to peruse the evidence.
Of course there is genocide in Gaza perpetrated by the IDF and of course
this is known to the United Nations (whose opinion is always scorned and dismissed by Israel) and by the International Court of Justice (whose jurisdiction is rejected by Israel and by the USA).
You seem to believe that because neither organisation feels able to
issue a categorical statement to that effect, it is the same as
declaring that no genocide has taken place.
If someone kicks you in the bollocks but has not yet been put on trial,That's about as dissimilar acase as could be put.
that is not the same as the police declaring that the culprit is innocent.
But some people take the view that they know better than the United
Nations and the International Court of Justice, yes?
Mr Hitler was, you might say, innocent until proved guilty and in fact - >>> in common with Fred West - he died before he could face trial and
therefore leaves this world without a stain on his character.
If you say so.
It's if you say so.
On 27/06/2025 10:31, The Todal wrote:
On 25/06/2025 12:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-25, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:56:39 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 24/06/2025 12:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/06/2025 11:06, Peter Walker wrote:There is now a fundraiser to pay for legal representation to challenge >>>>> the oppressive proposed ban on Palestine Action.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:mbv402Fqj1gU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 21:48, Peter Walker wrote:It was an act of sabotage, in WW2 they would have been hanged (if >>>>>>> caught).
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in
news:mbt2s4Fg4lqU1@mid.individual.net:
On 23/06/2025 13:47, Peter Walker wrote:Did you see the video of the actions on mainstream news? What was >>>>>>>>> sprayed into the compressor intake of the engine was not a bit of >>>>>>>>> holts scratch-be- gone, it was a very substantial quantity of >>>>>>>>> paint
Maybe the Greenham Women had better legal advice as in
addition to
their peaceful protest they only involved themselves in light >>>>>>>>>>> criminal damage by fence cutting and criminal trespass by >>>>>>>>>>> invasion
of an airfield but by disabling a military aircraft by spraying >>>>>>>>>>> paint into its engine the other crew crossed a very major line. >>>>>>>>>>
And the idea that a bit of spray paint kills military aircraft is >>>>>>>>>> frankly risible. What chance do we stand in any conflict if any >>>>>>>>>> teenage doodler can take down our air force in a matter of >>>>>>>>>> seconds?
jetted into the air intake. It is without doubt that it would have >>>>>>>>> been unsafe to fly the aircraft after the engine experienced >>>>>>>>> such a
contamination and so the group acted in a deliberate manner that >>>>>>>>> caused a military aircraft to be disabled. That is one very
serious
line to cross.
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other >>>>>>>> people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some >>>>>>>> considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not >>>>>>>> before
time.
Genocide is also a serious line to cross.
And what has that got to do with the matter in hand? Is Britain
using
its military aircraft to assist in the undeniable genocide in Gaza. >>>>>>>
Whilst I support their cause I do not support their methods.
Do be careful with your expressed support. Once it is a proscribed >>>>>> organisation, it will be a serious terrorism offence under Section 12 >>>>>> 1(A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to
"(a) express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed >>>>>> organisation, and
(b) in doing so [be] reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation."
You may welcome such a restriction on your historically hard won
freedom of speech, but I don't. It's a sledgehammer to crack a
nut and
utterly disproportionate.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
I'm donating.
But won't that be illegal ?
Next week it would presumably be illegal. This week not so much.
The Home Secretary has said she is going to lay the proscription order
before parliament next Monday, so presumably the group becomes illegal
from then.
They better get their money out from the funding website and to their
lawyer before then, because I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd-funder
gets cancelled by the website / their bank account gets frozen at that
point. The site says "7 days to go" which seems like too long.
The contributions have now exceeded the target and the money continues
to roll in.
The money is for expected legal fees to enable two excellent and
reputable law firms to pursue a challenge through the courts. It would
be appalling if the government was to confiscate that money or prevent
lawyers from challenging government decisions in the courts and I hope
even our current dimwit Home Secretary and Justice Secretary would see
that they would face condemnation from all lawyers and judges.
To which I imagine they are quite impervious. However appalling anyone might think confiscation of such money may be, it's my understanding
that the organisation becomes proscribed the moment the order is signed
by the Home Secretary,
and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if
that meant all of its assets were immediately frozen so couldn't be used
to fund any appeal or judicial review. And any new funding would be
illegal under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act. So, it'll be a bit
hampered from the off.
On 27/06/2025 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:57 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
... genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there is
a serious risk of genocide occurring.
Which is it?
Previously, you have not been quite so circumspect. What has modified
your stance?
Go on, put your big boy pants on and write to all those judges and
lawyers, with your asinine question.
Maybe they'll award you the Nobel Peace Prize, you never know.
On 26/06/2025 18:27, Pamela wrote:
On 14:34 26 Jun 2025, Jethro_uk said:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the
ICJ have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
One key difference is intent.
The IDF intends to empty Gaza of Palestinians by all available means, including mass slaughter.
See: "When to Refer to a Situation as Genocide"
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention
Alice Nderitu, the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide,
refuses to call the war with Hamas in Gaza a genocide.
Politicians use equivocation and evasion in order to preserve
diplomatic relations. But Alice Nderitu has condemned Israel's
breaches of international law.
She "reiterates that violations of international humanitarian law can
never justify the collective punishment of the people in Gaza.
Civilians must be protected at all times on both sides, Special
Adviser Wairimu Nderitu reminded."
Meanwhile if you want legal advice, ask a lawyer, or even lots of
lawyers. They are much cleverer and better informed, than you are.
https://lawyersletter.uk/
quotes
Serious violations of international law are being committed and are
further threatened by Israel in the oPt [occupied Palestinian
territory].
First, genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there
is a serious risk of genocide occurring.
Second, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and serious violations
of international humanitarian law are being committed in the oPt.
Third, Israel has been found by the International Court of Justice in
July 2024 to be violating peremptory norms of international law
across the entire oPt in denying the Palestinian people their right
to self-determination and unlawfully annexing territory acquired by
force.
Israels May 2025 plan the implementation of which began on 16 May
2025 is to forcibly and permanently displace the population of Gaza
to small areas of the Gaza Strip, and coerce their emigration to
other countries, in grave violation of international humanitarian
law, international criminal law and international human rights law.
Israel has moreover decided in May 2025 to facilitate and accelerate settlement development in the West Bank (including the territory
designated as Area C under the Oslo Accords). Both measures
exacerbate Israels ongoing and longstanding breach of the jus cogens (non-derogable)right of self-determination of the Palestinian people.
On 27/06/2025 13:11, JNugent wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:34 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 26/06/2025 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
[quoted text muted]
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor
the ICJ have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
By your logic it would have been outrageous to have accused Nazi
Germany of genocide unless and until the Nuremberg Trials had taken
place, long after the defeat of Germany.
That would depend on where you were, and how much you knew, surely?
But if it is the case that neither the United Nations nor the
International Court of Justice have established the presence of any
genocide, they are presumably the experts as well as having had a
chance to peruse the evidence.
Of course there is genocide in Gaza perpetrated by the IDF and of
course this is known to the United Nations (whose opinion is always
scorned and dismissed by Israel) and by the International Court of
Justice (whose jurisdiction is rejected by Israel and by the USA).
You seem to believe that because neither organisation feels able to
issue a categorical statement to that effect, it is the same as
declaring that no genocide has taken place.
If someone kicks you in the bollocks but has not yet been put on
trial, that is not the same as the police declaring that the culprit
is innocent.
On 25/06/2025 12:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-25, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:56:39 +0100, The Todal wrote:
There is now a fundraiser to pay for legal representation to challenge >>>> the oppressive proposed ban on Palestine Action.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
I'm donating.
But won't that be illegal ?
Next week it would presumably be illegal. This week not so much.
The Home Secretary has said she is going to lay the proscription order
before parliament next Monday, so presumably the group becomes illegal
from then.
They better get their money out from the funding website and to their
lawyer before then, because I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd-funder
gets cancelled by the website / their bank account gets frozen at that
point. The site says "7 days to go" which seems like too long.
The contributions have now exceeded the target and the money continues
to roll in.
The money is for expected legal fees to enable two excellent and
reputable law firms to pursue a challenge through the courts. It would
be appalling if the government was to confiscate that money or prevent lawyers from challenging government decisions in the courts and I hope
even our current dimwit Home Secretary and Justice Secretary would see
that they would face condemnation from all lawyers and judges.
On 26/06/2025 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 26/06/2025 02:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:25:28 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 08:55 24 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
[quoted text muted]
Palestinian Action's self-righteous stance relies entirely on
unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide". Neither the UN nor the ICJ
have established the presence of any genocide in Gaza.
What is the difference between killing thousands of civilians
indiscriminately and genocide ?
Would that be a question better addressed to the UN or ICJ?
By your logic it would have been outrageous to have accused Nazi Germany
of genocide unless and until the Nuremberg Trials had taken place, long
after the defeat of Germany.
On 27/06/2025 01:27 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/06/2025 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:57 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
... genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there is
a serious risk of genocide occurring.
Which is it?
Previously, you have not been quite so circumspect. What has modified
your stance?
Go on, put your big boy pants on and write to all those judges and
lawyers, with your asinine question.
Why?
How could the court possibly know your reasons for moving from a settled
view that genocide has taken place to a view that there is merely a risk
of its taking place?
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other people
- the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before time.
On 24/06/2025 08:55, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million. That seems high for cleaning a
couple of engines - it's more than the cost of new ones.
But these people may have done us a favour. They have pointed out that security there is grossly inadequate. It could have been someone
planting a device to destroy the aircraft in flight.
Andy
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
On 30/06/2025 14:32, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/06/2025 08:55, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
But let's not pretend that they put in danger any pilots or other
people - the damage was assessed and was repaired, no doubt at some
considerable expense. And maybe security will be improved, not before
time.
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million. That seems high for cleaning a
couple of engines - it's more than the cost of new ones.
But these people may have done us a favour. They have pointed out that
security there is grossly inadequate. It could have been someone
planting a device to destroy the aircraft in flight.
They could have done us all exactly the same favour by taking pictures
of themselves standing next to the plane. There was no need for them to
cause £millions of damage.
I don't know where the figure of £55m comes from, but Mr G shows several estimates at £30m, eg :
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/costs-damage-palestine-action-attacks-raf- brize-norton-30-million/
Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant
next to £55 million?
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant
next to £55 million?
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:Both are important - just as the Israeli deaths are, plus the Ukrainians
Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant
next to £55 million?
and Russians - I could go on...
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant
next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children from
dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this country.
Wrecking the planes is just so wasteful, but above all: stupidly
wasteful. Bob Vylan was able to achieve at least as much impact, just by chanting.
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this country.
Op 01/07/2025 om 08:56 schreef GB:
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the >>>>> cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant
next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children from
dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this
country.
Wrecking the planes is just so wasteful, but above all: stupidly
wasteful. Bob Vylan was able to achieve at least as much impact, just
by chanting.
What if I went to Tesco, filled up my trolley with £500 worth of goods,
then shouted "Fuck Israel", left, refusing to pay, and then said: "Yes,
but the kids in Gaza?". Would I get away with it?
What if I went to Tesco, filled up my trolley with £500 worth of goods,
then shouted "Fuck Israel", left, refusing to pay, and then said: "Yes,
but the kids in Gaza?". Would I get away with it?
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant
next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children from
dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this country.
On 27/06/2025 14:52, JNugent wrote:
On 27/06/2025 01:27 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/06/2025 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:57 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
... genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there
is a serious risk of genocide occurring.
Which is it?
Previously, you have not been quite so circumspect. What has
modified your stance?
Go on, put your big boy pants on and write to all those judges and
lawyers, with your asinine question.
Why?
How could the court possibly know your reasons for moving from a
settled view that genocide has taken place to a view that there is
merely a risk of its taking place?
You really have major comprehension problems. The wording:
"First, genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there
is a serious risk of genocide occurring".
was not my personal opinion but the opinion of the judges and
lawyers. So you do have to ask them. Why are you too lazy to read
posts properly and to follow links?
On 01/07/2025 08:56, GB wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the >>>>> cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant
next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children from
dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this
country.
The only purpose of those planes is to kill people, including children.
So save the money and scrap them. Win-win.
On 01/07/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/07/2025 08:56, GB wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the >>>>>> cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant >>>> next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children
from dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this
country.
The only purpose of those planes is to kill people, including
children. So save the money and scrap them. Win-win.
Mr Putin has shown great willingness to welcome us to be part of Greater Russia, though.
On 01/07/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/07/2025 08:56, GB wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the >>>>>> cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant >>>> next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children from
dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this
country.
The only purpose of those planes is to kill people, including children.
So save the money and scrap them. Win-win.
Mr Putin has shown great willingness to welcome us to be part of Greater Russia, though.
On 01/07/2025 17:11, GB wrote:
On 01/07/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:Quite so. I wonder if the spray-painters had got to the Spits &
On 01/07/2025 08:56, GB wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that >>>>>>> the
cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is
unimportant
next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children
from dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in
this country.
The only purpose of those planes is to kill people, including
children. So save the money and scrap them. Win-win.
Mr Putin has shown great willingness to welcome us to be part of
Greater Russia, though.
Lancasters during WW2 what the reaction would have been. As it turned
out, it is relieving to know that my late father who was shot down did
so surely in the knowledge that he was supporting the pathetic types
which seem to abound today.
On 1 Jul 2025 at 17:11:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 01/07/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/07/2025 08:56, GB wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Op 30/06/2025 om 14:32 schreef Vir Campestris:
I read earlier today in a source I don't trust all that much that the >>>>>>> cost of the damage was £55 million.
"Yes, but... the kids in Gaza, eh?"
Are you saying that the deaths of all those kids in Gaza is unimportant >>>>> next to £55 million?
A more useful question is whether the £55m has saved any children from >>>> dying in future?
Using the NICE guidelines, that £55m could have been use to provide
around 2000 quality adjusted years of life to cancer patients in this
country.
The only purpose of those planes is to kill people, including children.
So save the money and scrap them. Win-win.
Mr Putin has shown great willingness to welcome us to be part of Greater
Russia, though.
You have a point. Pacifism seems unwise in the present situation. But it remains true that the *only* thing we use these planes for currently is spotting brown people who need exterminating in interests of real estate deals; or in the interest of installing the right races of mediaeval bigots in
settlements.
If these planes were defending Ukraine I would be more inclined to throw the book at saboteurs.
Mr Putin has shown great willingness to welcome us to be part of Greater Russia,
though.
On 1 Jul 2025 at 17:11:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Mr Putin has shown great willingness to welcome us to be part of Greater
Russia, though.
You have a point. Pacifism seems unwise in the present situation. But it remains true that the *only* thing we use these planes for currently is spotting brown people who need exterminating in interests of real estate deals; or in the interest of installing the right races of mediaeval bigots in
settlements.
If these planes were defending Ukraine I would be more inclined to throw the book at saboteurs.
Pacifism seems unwise in the present situation. But it
remains true that the *only* thing we use these planes for currently is spotting brown people who need exterminating in interests of real estate deals; or in the interest of installing the right races of mediaeval bigots in
settlements.
If these planes were defending Ukraine I would be more inclined to throw the book at saboteurs.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:36:15 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,953 |