dsr-burnley

Presumably those figures are talking about CO2 reduction starting from the moment the fuel is in the truck. It doesn't include the CO2 used in generating the power, because obviously electricity is not (and probaby cannot) be generated entirely by renewable energy. We need to be careful about using agricultural land for power. There are 8 billion people on this planet who want to eat. Rich countries already use more than our share of the available farmland, and we're trying to stop poorer countries from converting forest to agriculture.

They ought to put more pressure on Egypt, who have also closed the border with Gaza. There are two million Palestinians. It should be plain to see why Israel isn't willing to give them shelter, but why aren't the Muslim nations - vast numbers over immense areas, they have plenty of room - providing accommodation for the 2 million Palestinians or as many of them as want to leave? The fighters can remain, the women, children, and non-combatants can leave until the fighting is over and the UN rescue package can start.

And of course they don't restrict it to rugby and boxing. Their logic applies to all sports where concussion is likely, which includes football and any team sport that involves two people chasing one ball, as well as horse riding, cycling, go karts, most athletic events, cricket, ... ... ... Surely the logical conclusion shouldn't so much be to abolish sport, but to insist that children wear crash helmets 24 hours a day until their 18th birthday?

It isn't possible to make it "safe". But then, it isn't possible to make being a passenger in a car "safe", or going to school "safe", or leaving the house "safe", or stopping in the house "safe". In fact, it isn't possible to make living "safe" because whatever we do, we die at the end. What they could do if they wanted to is assess the benefits brought about by various activities and see if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. What they are doing is looking for evidence that a single child has suffered and using that as reason to call for a ban. If that's the criterion, then we might as well put children in solitary confinement in a padded cell until they're 18 to ensure they can't hurt themselves.

Perhaps the reason the police didn't take her seriously was because they could see that the mouth and nose of the two photographed children, were not the same shape. Same nose and different hairstyle, might be the same child; same hair but different nose, not the same.

Do you know what Hamas people are like? Did you see anything about the massacres at the pop festival? Do you honestly think you could be so evil?

Obviously you can't kill an ideology. The point of getting rid of Hamas is that Hamas is running Gaza and they need to be removed so someone else can run it. World War 2 didn't kill fascism, but it did get rid of Hitler.

Who had any idea that Israel was defenceless? It was certain from the beginning that Israel would wipe out Hamas if they went to war, as we all knew they would given the provocation. As for the things you don't agree with, how many of those were done by Churchill and the Allies in World War 2? They called for the eradication of the Nazis, and I'm sure there were people who described the Nazis as sub-human. We went to war with Germany, and women and children were killed. As for playing about with underwear, at least (unlike Hamas's actions) the women weren't still wearing it. There are three options: 1. Hamas is removed by Israel. 2. Hamas is removed by someone else. 3. Hamas is allowed to continue in government. Which one should be selected?

It's the same old argument that no country should ever go to war because of the collateral deaths of civilians. What's the practical alternative? Is leaving Hamas (who are no friend of the children of Gaza) in power, free to come and go and murder and rape, a valid option? If Hamas has to be got rid of, how can it be done without war? Where do the figures come from, incidentally? It seems an extraordinarily high proportion of children, bearing in mind that the total deaths of short of 30,000 includes close to 10,000 "soldiers". Are the figures reliable that say almost half of other casualties are children? Who provides those figures?

So why doesn't Hamas want a ceasefire? Why is Hamas fighting on? Have they any other purpose apart from raising the death toll yet higher in hopes that people will turn against the Jews and demand another Holocaust? One of the problems with this war is that people expect so little of the Gaza government. They see a terrorist get killed in a hospital, and they don't think "how awful, a terrorist sheltering in a hospital", they think "how awful, a soldier shot a terrorist in hospital". This is because Israel is expected to follow international rules and the Geneva convention or its modern equivalent, and Gaza is not. When Hamas fighters commit atrocities, it's a case of "what can we expect, they're Hamas. They're Palestinians. They're Arabs." Hamas are not being expected to behave like human beings. It is not expected of them. It ought to be expected of them. They are evil, as evil a group as can be found on this planet, I think most of us can agree - but they are still human beings and must be held to the standard of human beings. Why don't they surrender to the United Nations? Call for an instant ceasefire, promise to release all the hostages as soon as the UN arrives, and rely on UN protection? Israel would no doubt agree to withdraw in that event. (It might be useful if Hamas agrees to drop its stated ambition to kill every Jew, as well.)

I'd be surprised if there is an international law against it, frankly. Being in hospital does give combatants immunity from the process of war. (And Hamas have admitted that they were their "soldiers".) I think there might be an international law about using hospitals as a human shield, though.

To be fair, Hamas would have no reason to disguise themselves going into an Israeli hospital, because their targets would be the old, the sick, the children and babies. (Though I understand they are no longer holding any hostages under the age of 1 because their youngest had his first birthday earlier this month. If he is still alive.)

I think Doctor's point is that by restricting discussion about homosexuality in school to sex education classes, the USA is half-way down the same path that Hitler took towards gassing the Jews at Auschwitz. For some reason, it is important to him that any teacher who is inclined towards sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex, must be allowed to share that knowledge and practice with the four to fifteen year olds in his or her class. Regardless of what the parents think. To ban a kindergarten teacher from teaching the children about the theory and practice of homosexuality is (it seems) just the sort of thing that Hitler did. I agree, it's a stretch.

It's certainly a topic of interest in that I want to know about it and am interested in it. The answers have been helpful and informative. It's not "of interest" in the sense that I am going to get one, because it just isn't practical for me in its current form.

You think this drag law would or could be applied to women wearing trousers? They have laws about not letting children into films that aren't suitable; I don't see a great objection to children being banned from live shows that aren't suitable. Obviously it's a bit rough on people who want to appear before children wearing obvious fake breasts and ridiculous makeup, but let's face it - some people think that children should be protected from obviously sexual shows. I still don't know whether or not this law has been ignored in the past. If you're saying that no-one has ever broken this law and so trans people should be allowed to break it, then I disagree. If on the other hand you are saying that the law has been routinely broken without penalty, then I agree that would be wrong. Please post the examples (preferably not behind a paywall). As to whether the candidate guides should have been made clearer, I agree. But the US equivalent of the returning officer can't just ignore the law simply because the candidate guide was incomplete. I think your objection to my apparent illiteracy isn't that I am not reading what you say, because obviously I am. What you are objecting to is that I don't agree with what you say.

No point. I don't have a driveway and I'm not prepared to spend £10k+ on any car. I'll put up with having to use three pedals!

I find that gratuitous rudeness fails to persuade anyone to change their mind. Or perhaps you mean it literally, in which case I am happy to confirm that I am able to read and write. I don't subscribe to the Washington Post. Does it provide a list of times when candidates have failed to declare their previous names and the breach of law has been ignored?

Is this "smoother drive" simply because changing gears is such a faff for some people, or is it just the deceleration and acceleration of a gear change that is causing the angst? I have driven a petrol automatic, and didn't notice any advantage to it - perhaps because I'm just too used to suffering life's little difficulties and inconveniences such as having to change gear. Or am I missing the point? Is the better ride quality for some other reason?

Can you provide a link to the times when it failed to be enforced when a non-trans person did it? Or was it enforced for the first time because this is the first time it happened? A link to the teachers who have been sacked or constructively dismissed would be helpful too. As yet, I haven't seen evidence that the US government is working on the same lines and with the same intentions as Hitler.

As they say, one of the first casualties of fascism is truth. I don't know if you are being lied to and are just repeating those lies, or if you are lying off your own bat. The Ohio case was a trans woman who was disqualified because she did not disclose that she has changed her name in the past 5 years. It's an electoral law that applies to everyone in Ohio except newly weds who changed their name on marriage. It's been in force since 1995 so I don't think it was aimed at trans people. If you have a link to how LGBT teachers are being banned from school, effectively or otherwise, by all means post it. All I can find is that they they can only teach about LGBT activities and lifestyles during sex education lessons.

Only in the same sense of going on to a vegetarian thread and accusing vegetarians of being just like Hitler. Using the same sort of rhetoric as Hitler, even if two of the words Trump used were also used by Hitler, is not a fair comparison of being like Hitler. "Like Hitler" is an implication of genocide, not an implication of using two of his words.

Two things to consider, though I dare say you're already considering them. 1. More expensive to heat a larger area (and with two outside doors into that area, too). 2. You'll have a toilet opening straight into the lounge.

The problem is that you can't make high quality steel with an electric furnace. We will still use high quality steel, but will have to import it. The point of this move is that the emissions from producing the steel won't count against the UK's CO2 emissions, they will count against another country's emissions (presumably China). No help at all with global warming or global emissions, but a useful way (at a cost of thousands of jobs) of appearing to get the UK figures down.

Russia first invaded Ukraine when Obama was President, and launched the full invasion when Biden was President. Hamas attacked Israel when Biden was President, most of Iran's proxy attacks have been when Biden was President. Biden is not a recipe for peace, unfortunately.

To change the subject slightly, it seems fairly recent that the "I am right and if you disagree you are stupid" argument came to the fore. But quickly we seem to have moved on to "I am right and if you disagree you are insane". What's the next step?