Yet another car smashed into a house.

On 11/06/2011 05:16, Doug wrote:


BTW. What has this to do with cars crashing into houses and cycling?.
Who started to go OT?

Doug.

Thats rich coming from you ****wit.

What does a car crashing into a house have to do with cycling? **** all.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:30 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

Oh, I see. Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary
principles?

Where is it all set out? Can you give any evidence, especially a
reliable source and reference?

It is usually self-evident and involves stopping something which is
causing harm.

Like protests causing damage then. And squatters, and animal rights
activists, and killer vegetable weapons?

Why don't any of those figure in your application of the
precautionary principle as you've defined it?

Obviously they do, when they are prevented by the authorities and
assuming they are actually harmful.

So, you _agree_ with its application in those cases then? That's
surprising.

'Self-evident' is all a bit airy-fairy, isn't it? It means exactly
what you and your mates want it to mean. What I want is some hard
and fast rule, not some random evaluation made by unrepresentative,
unidentified hippies.

So, tell us again about the precautionary principle, and the
hierarchy of precautionary principles that you say exists.

Why is it you cannot understand the precautionary principle and how it
works?

Because it's so vague, and seems to be applicable just when _you_ and your
hippy mates want it to be, and not when something you want to do might be
stopped.

So, do you agree that's it's right to apply the precautionary principle in
respect of protests causing damage, and squatters, and animal rights
activists, and killer vegetables?

No justification for removing meat therefore.

You obviously have not been following the news again. Thus far
scientific tests carried out on the beansprouts have not revealed any
infection but they are banned circumstantially instead.

No, they've been banned evidentially, on a beyond reasonable doubt basis.

It is quite
possible that the infection is actually due to, some other foodstuff
or has been transferred by human contact. The Germans also say that
the actual source may never be found..

If closure of the farm results in no more infections, and it seems to be
heading that way, then that's proof enough for me that it was the source.

And if it has the effect of making people appreciate the risks inherent in
organic farming, so much the better.

So, the only answer is to remove all vegetables before they fall
into their hands, isn't it?.

You are still being persistently wrong. See above.

Do please explain the precautionary principle then, so that even I
can understand it properly.

You seem to be incapable of understanding despite the information
placed before you.

Why not give it a try?

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if
an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public
or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the
action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not
harmful falls on those taking the action.

This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in
situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a
particular course or making a certain decision when extensive
scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies
that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from
exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible
risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific
findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will
result..."

Exactly. All veg was under suspicion. All veg should therefore have been
removed from the shelves surely under just that principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

So thus far the Germans have applied the precautionary principle to
beansprouts alone and from one source only and without scientific
evidence, which seems a little lax to say the least. They should be
out there testing all foods which the infected people have eaten in
common. I suspect that they have chosen beansprouts as an easy option
which is likely to cause a minimum of panic among the general public
and to the countries which are presently banning foods imported from
Germany.

Indeed. The precautionary principle should be extended to all fruit and veg
throughout the EC until long term trials can establish that it's totally
safe.

Isn't that a proper application of the precautionary principle? And don't
you therefore agree with such action?

On Jun 11, 9:41*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:30 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Oh, I see. Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary
principles?

Where is it all set out? Can you give any evidence, especially a
reliable source and reference?

It is usually self-evident and involves stopping something which is
causing harm.

Like protests causing damage then. And squatters, and animal rights
activists, and killer vegetable weapons?

Why don't any of those figure in your application of the
precautionary principle as you've defined it?

Obviously they do, when they are prevented by the authorities and
assuming they are actually harmful.

So, you _agree_ with its application in those cases then? *That's
surprising.

I doubt that most would qualify as a general source of harm. Indeed,
squatting is completely legal pending civil legal procedings. You
didn't know that did you?

'Self-evident' is all a bit airy-fairy, isn't it? It means exactly
what you and your mates want it to mean. What I want is some hard
and fast rule, not some random evaluation made by unrepresentative,
unidentified hippies.

So, tell us again about the precautionary principle, and the
hierarchy of precautionary principles that you say exists.

Why is it you cannot understand the precautionary principle and how it
works?

Because it's so vague, and seems to be applicable just when _you_ and your
hippy mates want it to be, and not when something you want to do might be
stopped.

Its not vague at all, except for you to understand apparently.

So, do you agree that's it's right to apply the precautionary principle in
respect of protests causing damage, and squatters, and animal rights
activists, and killer vegetables?

Only if they qualify. Some do, obviously, where prior preventative
measures have been installed by the authorities.

No justification for removing meat therefore.

You obviously have not been following the news again. Thus far
scientific tests carried out on the beansprouts have not revealed any
infection but they are banned circumstantially instead.

No, they've been banned evidentially, on a beyond reasonable doubt basis.

There is still a reasonable doubt in the absence of proper scientific
evidence.

It is quite
possible that the infection is actually due to, some other foodstuff
or has been transferred by human contact. The Germans also say that
the actual source may never be found..

If closure of the farm results in no more infections, and it seems to be
heading that way, then that's proof enough for me that it was the source.

So we can expect a total absence of any new infections starting from
about now?

Incidentally, how could that farm be responsible for identical
infections in other parts of the world?

And if it has the effect of making people appreciate the risks inherent in
organic farming, so much the better.

You are completely wrong yet again. The risks are not confined to
organic farming. I assume you have no evidence for your ludicrous
claim, as usual.




So, the only answer is to remove all vegetables before they fall
into their hands, isn't it?.

You are still being persistently wrong. See above.

Do please explain the precautionary principle then, so that even I
can understand it properly.

You seem to be incapable of understanding despite the information
placed before you.

Why not give it a try?

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if
an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public
or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the
action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not
harmful falls on those taking the action.

This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in
situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a
particular course or making a certain decision when extensive
scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies
that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from
exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible
risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific
findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will
result..."

Exactly. *All veg was under suspicion. *All veg should therefore have been
removed from the shelves surely under just that principle.

No, for the reasons given previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

So thus far the Germans have applied the precautionary principle to
beansprouts alone and from one source only and without scientific
evidence, which seems a little lax to say the least. They should be
out there testing all foods which the infected people have eaten in
common. I suspect that they have chosen beansprouts as an easy option
which is likely to cause a minimum of panic among the general public
and to the countries which are *presently banning foods imported from
Germany.

Indeed. *The precautionary principle should be extended to all fruit and veg
throughout the EC until long term trials can establish that it's totally
safe.

That would assume to start with that all foods are considered unsafe
until proven otherwise. Isn't there mandatory general food testing on
a regular basis anyway?

Isn't that a proper application of the precautionary principle? *And don't
you therefore agree with such action?

"In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the
application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory
requirement."

Do you have a problem with that?

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:41 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:30 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Oh, I see. Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary
principles?

Where is it all set out? Can you give any evidence, especially a
reliable source and reference?

It is usually self-evident and involves stopping something which
is causing harm.

Like protests causing damage then. And squatters, and animal rights
activists, and killer vegetable weapons?

Why don't any of those figure in your application of the
precautionary principle as you've defined it?

Obviously they do, when they are prevented by the authorities and
assuming they are actually harmful.

So, you _agree_ with its application in those cases then? That's
surprising.

I doubt that most would qualify as a general source of harm. Indeed,
squatting is completely legal pending civil legal procedings. You
didn't know that did you?

Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it constitutes
aggravated trespass. Very few instances of squatting actually avoid both of
those, so it is generally a criminal activity.

Also, since squatting is an activity that can be remedied by civil action,
it is manifestly not true that 'squatting is completely legal'. It is in
fact completely illegal. That's why it can be remedied.

But why do you say that the others would not qualify as a general source of
harm? It will be abundantly clear to anyone here that protests causing
damage, animal rights activists and killer vegetables cause considerable
harm. They should all be subject to the application of the precautionary
principle therefore, shouldn't they?

So, do you agree that's it's right to apply the precautionary
principle in respect of protests causing damage, and squatters, and
animal rights activists, and killer vegetables?

Only if they qualify. Some do, obviously, where prior preventative
measures have been installed by the authorities.

So, now you approve of preventative action, including preventative policing,
which you never did before. That's a turn up.

You obviously have not been following the news again. Thus far
scientific tests carried out on the beansprouts have not revealed
any infection but they are banned circumstantially instead.

No, they've been banned evidentially, on a beyond reasonable doubt
basis.

There is still a reasonable doubt in the absence of proper scientific
evidence.

Not to anyone with a brain.

It is quite
possible that the infection is actually due to, some other foodstuff
or has been transferred by human contact. The Germans also say that
the actual source may never be found..

If closure of the farm results in no more infections, and it seems
to be heading that way, then that's proof enough for me that it was
the source.

So we can expect a total absence of any new infections starting from
about now?

You just don't understand, do you? E-coli is an infective agent. Those who
have it can pass it on to others by fecal contamination. Not everyone who
gets it will have got it directly from the original beansprout source. But
everyone who gets it will be connected in some way to that original source.

That original source has to be shut down to prevent the seeding of new
outbreaks. And that should restrict the spread of the infection to those
who have been in close contact with those who are already infected and have
not employed effective hygiene measures.


Incidentally, how could that farm be responsible for identical
infections in other parts of the world?

All, I believe, can be traced back to the part of Germany where the outbreak
originated. They are not independent outbreaks which really would be
colossally improbable.

And if it has the effect of making people appreciate the risks
inherent in organic farming, so much the better.

You are completely wrong yet again. The risks are not confined to
organic farming. I assume you have no evidence for your ludicrous
claim, as usual.

The outbreak came from an organic farm and concerns a strain of an organism
that exists only in the human gut and human faeces. Go figure.

Exactly. All veg was under suspicion. All veg should therefore have
been removed from the shelves surely under just that principle.

No, for the reasons given previously.

You haven't given any previously.


Indeed. The precautionary principle should be extended to all fruit
and veg throughout the EC until long term trials can establish that
it's totally safe.

That would assume to start with that all foods are considered unsafe
until proven otherwise.

No, not all foods, just those under suspicion. That means all veg.

Isn't there mandatory general food testing on a regular basis anyway?

I think you'll find that no-one, not even an organic farm, is allowed to
sell food that kills people. It's for them to ensure that.

On Jun 15, 9:48*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:41 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:30 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Oh, I see. Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary
principles?

Where is it all set out? Can you give any evidence, especially a
reliable source and reference?

It is usually self-evident and involves stopping something which
is causing harm.

Like protests causing damage then. And squatters, and animal rights
activists, and killer vegetable weapons?

Why don't any of those figure in your application of the
precautionary principle as you've defined it?

Obviously they do, when they are prevented by the authorities and
assuming they are actually harmful.

So, you _agree_ with its application in those cases then? That's
surprising.

I doubt that most would qualify as a general source of harm. Indeed,
squatting is completely legal pending civil legal procedings. You
didn't know that did you?

Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it constitutes
aggravated trespass. *Very few instances of squatting actually avoid both of
those, so it is generally a criminal activity.

Evidence?

Here is mine...

http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php...13&Itemi d=31

Also, since squatting is an activity that can be remedied by civil action,
it is manifestly not true that 'squatting is completely legal'. *It is in
fact completely illegal. *That's why it can be remedied.

Did you miss 'pending civil legal proceedings'?

But why do you say that the others would not qualify as a general source of
harm? *It will be abundantly clear to anyone here that protests causing
damage, animal rights activists and killer vegetables cause considerable
harm. *They should all be subject to the application of the precautionary
principle therefore, shouldn't they?

They are already.

So, do you agree that's it's right to apply the precautionary
principle in respect of protests causing damage, and squatters, and
animal rights activists, and killer vegetables?

Only if they qualify. Some do, obviously, where prior preventative
measures have been installed by the authorities.

So, now you approve of preventative action, including preventative policing,
which you never did before. *That's a turn up.

Why is everything either black or white to you?

You obviously have not been following the news again. Thus far
scientific tests carried out on the beansprouts have not revealed
any infection but they are banned circumstantially instead.

No, they've been banned evidentially, on a beyond reasonable doubt
basis.

There is still a reasonable doubt in the absence of proper scientific
evidence.

Not to anyone with a brain.

A non-functioning brain apparently

It is quite
possible that the infection is actually due to, some other foodstuff
or has been transferred by human contact. The Germans also say that
the actual source may never be found..

If closure of the farm results in no more infections, and it seems
to be heading that way, then that's proof enough for me that it was
the source.

So we can expect a total absence of any new infections starting from
about now?

You just don't understand, do you? *E-coli is an infective agent. *Those who
have it can pass it on to others by fecal contamination. *Not everyone who
gets it will have got it directly from the original beansprout source. *But
everyone who gets it will be connected in some way to that original source.

Ah so it is not just beansprouts alone then! How do you imagine the
beansprouts were infected in the first place then, assuming they were
at all?

That original source has to be shut down to prevent the seeding of new
outbreaks. *And that should restrict the spread of the infection to those
who have been in close contact with those who are already infected and have
not employed effective hygiene measures.

So you now admit that beansprouts are not the sole source of the
infection?

Incidentally, how could that farm be responsible for identical
infections in other parts of the world?

All, I believe, can be traced back to the part of Germany where the outbreak
originated. *They are not independent outbreaks which really would be
colossally improbable.

Apparently there are a few independent outbreaks which means you are
still wrong.

And if it has the effect of making people appreciate the risks
inherent in organic farming, so much the better.

You are completely wrong yet again. The risks are not confined to
organic farming. I assume you have no evidence for your ludicrous
claim, as usual.

The outbreak came from an organic farm and concerns a strain of an organism
that exists only in the human gut and human faeces. *Go figure.

Don't you know what 'organic' means in connection with food?

Exactly. All veg was under suspicion. All veg should therefore have
been removed from the shelves surely under just that principle.

No, for the reasons given previously.

You haven't given any previously.

You have failed to understand them, obviously. Here's a reminder. One
precautionary principle can override another depending on which is the
most serious.

Indeed. The precautionary principle should be extended to all fruit
and veg throughout the EC until long term trials can establish that
it's totally safe.

That would assume to start with that all foods are considered unsafe
until proven otherwise.

No, not all foods, just those under suspicion. *That means all veg.

Wrong. The most implicated in e-coli infections is meat. So why has
there been no meat testing in this connection, especially bearing in
mind its faecal transmission?

Isn't there mandatory general food testing on a regular basis anyway?

I think you'll find that no-one, not even an organic farm, is allowed to
sell food that kills people. *It's for them to ensure that.

Duh! The testing is done by the authorities not the suppliers. You
don't seem to know much about the subject of food. Maybe that explains
your odd views in relation to beansprouts.and precautionary
principles.

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:48 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

I doubt that most would qualify as a general source of harm. Indeed,
squatting is completely legal pending civil legal procedings. You
didn't know that did you?

Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it
constitutes aggravated trespass. Very few instances of squatting
actually avoid both of those, so it is generally a criminal activity.

Evidence?

Shelter says this:

"The law on squatting

Squatting itself is not a criminal offence. However, it is illegal to get
into a property by breaking in or damaging windows and doors. You could be
arrested even if the damage is minimal.

In some cases, squatters can also be prosecuted for other offences. There is
a risk that this could happen if: you don't leave when the landlord gets a
court order, or
a person who normally lives in the property, or has a right to move in (such
as a new tenant) asks you to leave.

Using utilities such as gas, electricity and water without contacting the
suppliers is also illegal."

I suppose you will now tell me, contrary to all knowledge, experience and
common sense, that squatters in general do none of these things?

Here is mine...

http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php...13&Itemi d=31

That has nothing whatever to do with whether squatting is illegal.


Also, since squatting is an activity that can be remedied by civil
action, it is manifestly not true that 'squatting is completely
legal'. It is in fact completely illegal. That's why it can be
remedied.

Did you miss 'pending civil legal proceedings'?

Did you miss "Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it
constitutes aggravated trespass"?

The mere act of squatting is not itself illegal. It's the inevitable
accompanying acts that are. It's those that make the vast majority of
squats illegal.

But why do you say that the others would not qualify as a general
source of harm? It will be abundantly clear to anyone here that
protests causing damage, animal rights activists and killer
vegetables cause considerable harm. They should all be subject to
the application of the precautionary principle therefore, shouldn't
they?

They are already.

So, do you agree that's it's right to apply the precautionary
principle in respect of protests causing damage, and squatters, and
animal rights activists, and killer vegetables?

Only if they qualify. Some do, obviously, where prior preventative
measures have been installed by the authorities.

So, now you approve of preventative action, including preventative
policing, which you never did before. That's a turn up.

Why is everything either black or white to you?

Because someone has to decide whether the precautionary principle should be
applied or not, and that's a yes/no question.

But I'm glad you approve of preventative policing. We're making progress.


If closure of the farm results in no more infections, and it seems
to be heading that way, then that's proof enough for me that it was
the source.

So we can expect a total absence of any new infections starting from
about now?

You just don't understand, do you? E-coli is an infective agent.
Those who have it can pass it on to others by fecal contamination.
Not everyone who gets it will have got it directly from the original
beansprout source. But everyone who gets it will be connected in
some way to that original source.

Ah so it is not just beansprouts alone then! How do you imagine the
beansprouts were infected in the first place then, assuming they were
at all?

By human faecal contamination. For so many cases to have been reported,
that contamination must have been on quite a large scale on the farm. That
suggests to me that a lack of personal hygiene by one individual is unlikely
to have been the cause, but that it's more likely to have been the result of
using human waste in the production process, probably as a component of the
growth medium for the beans.

That original source has to be shut down to prevent the seeding of
new outbreaks. And that should restrict the spread of the infection
to those who have been in close contact with those who are already
infected and have not employed effective hygiene measures.

So you now admit that beansprouts are not the sole source of the
infection?

No. All the infections can be traced back to those as the source.

Incidentally, how could that farm be responsible for identical
infections in other parts of the world?

All, I believe, can be traced back to the part of Germany where the
outbreak originated. They are not independent outbreaks which really
would be colossally improbable.

Apparently there are a few independent outbreaks which means you are
still wrong.

Source? Cite? Evidence?

And if it has the effect of making people appreciate the risks
inherent in organic farming, so much the better.

You are completely wrong yet again. The risks are not confined to
organic farming. I assume you have no evidence for your ludicrous
claim, as usual.

The outbreak came from an organic farm and concerns a strain of an
organism that exists only in the human gut and human faeces. Go
figure.

Don't you know what 'organic' means in connection with food?

It means whatever the producers want it to mean. There is no scientific or
legal definition, only arbitrary unscientific standards laid down by
self-appointed arbiters in their or their associates' own interests.


Exactly. All veg was under suspicion. All veg should therefore have
been removed from the shelves surely under just that principle.

No, for the reasons given previously.

You haven't given any previously.

You have failed to understand them, obviously. Here's a reminder. One
precautionary principle can override another depending on which is the
most serious.

Do tell us here then which precautionary principles are in conflict here,
which takes precedence, why, and who decides.


Indeed. The precautionary principle should be extended to all fruit
and veg throughout the EC until long term trials can establish that
it's totally safe.

That would assume to start with that all foods are considered unsafe
until proven otherwise.

No, not all foods, just those under suspicion. That means all veg.

Wrong. The most implicated in e-coli infections is meat. So why has
there been no meat testing in this connection, especially bearing in
mind its faecal transmission?

Because _everything_ links back to the farm, and to beansprouts from it.

Isn't there mandatory general food testing on a regular basis
anyway?

I think you'll find that no-one, not even an organic farm, is
allowed to sell food that kills people. It's for them to ensure that.

Duh! The testing is done by the authorities not the suppliers. You
don't seem to know much about the subject of food. Maybe that explains
your odd views in relation to beansprouts.and precautionary
principles.

No, you're completely wrong as usual. The authorities do not have the
resources to go round checking on all supplies of food. All they can do is
make random and isolated inspections of food chain facilities and make
recommendations. The law applies to the producers. It's they who must
comply with food safety laws. And it's they who are liable if things go
wrong.

http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/agenc...theagencydoes/

On Jun 18, 9:51*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:48 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
I doubt that most would qualify as a general source of harm. Indeed,
squatting is completely legal pending civil legal procedings. You
didn't know that did you?

Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it
constitutes aggravated trespass. Very few instances of squatting
actually avoid both of those, so it is generally a criminal activity.

Evidence?

Shelter says this:

"The law on squatting

Squatting itself is not a criminal offence. However, it is illegal to get
into a property by breaking in or damaging windows and doors. You could be
arrested even if the damage is minimal.

In some cases, squatters can also be prosecuted for other offences. There is
a risk that this could happen if: *you don't leave when the landlord gets a
court order, or
a person who normally lives in the property, or has a right to move in (such
as a new tenant) asks you to leave.

Using utilities such as gas, electricity and water without contacting the
suppliers is also illegal."

I suppose you will now tell me, contrary to all knowledge, experience and
common sense, that squatters in general do none of these things?

In the text you have conveniently deleted you stated, "it is generally
a criminal activity", which is a gross exaggeration and untrue.

Here is mine...

http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php...&task=view&id=...

That has nothing whatever to do with whether squatting is illegal.

Squatting isn't illegal. That is why i8t is allowed to happen,
frequently.

Also, since squatting is an activity that can be remedied by civil
action, it is manifestly not true that 'squatting is completely
legal'. It is in fact completely illegal. That's why it can be
remedied.

Did you miss 'pending civil legal proceedings'?

Did you miss "Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it
constitutes aggravated trespass"?

You just don't get it do you? Squatting - legal, criminal damage -
illegal, aggravated trespass - illegal, murder - illegal, etc.

The mere act of squatting is not itself illegal.

Thank you at last!

*It's the inevitable
accompanying acts that are. *It's those that make the vast majority of
squats illegal.

Evidence of vast majority? Most squats are allowed to remain,
sometimes for years, until a court order is obtained.








But why do you say that the others would not qualify as a general
source of harm? It will be abundantly clear to anyone here that
protests causing damage, animal rights activists and killer
vegetables cause considerable harm. They should all be subject to
the application of the precautionary principle therefore, shouldn't
they?

They are already.

So, do you agree that's it's right to apply the precautionary
principle in respect of protests causing damage, and squatters, and
animal rights activists, and killer vegetables?

Only if they qualify. Some do, obviously, where prior preventative
measures have been installed by the authorities.

So, now you approve of preventative action, including preventative
policing, which you never did before. That's a turn up.

Why is everything either black or white to you?

Because someone has to decide whether the precautionary principle should be
applied or not, and that's a yes/no question.

But I'm glad you approve of preventative policing. *We're making progress.

You are not making any progress at all because you still seem unable
to understand the difference between criminal and political policing.
Political demonstrations are not crimes and yet they are sometimes
policed pre-emptively and preventatively.








If closure of the farm results in no more infections, and it seems
to be heading that way, then that's proof enough for me that it was
the source.

So we can expect a total absence of any new infections starting from
about now?

You just don't understand, do you? E-coli is an infective agent.
Those who have it can pass it on to others by fecal contamination.
Not everyone who gets it will have got it directly from the original
beansprout source. But everyone who gets it will be connected in
some way to that original source.

Ah so it is not just beansprouts alone then! How do you imagine the
beansprouts were infected in the first place then, assuming they were
at all?

By human faecal contamination. *For so many cases to have been reported,
that contamination must have been on quite a large scale on the farm.

Or, as there was no scientific evidence of infection at all the farm
was not the source.

*That
suggests to me that a lack of personal hygiene by one individual is unlikely
to have been the cause, but that it's more likely to have been the result of
using human waste in the production process, probably as a component of the
growth medium for the beans.

I suppose it doesn't occur to you at all that faecal contamination can
occur almost anywhere in all manner of circumstances?

That original source has to be shut down to prevent the seeding of
new outbreaks. And that should restrict the spread of the infection
to those who have been in close contact with those who are already
infected and have not employed effective hygiene measures.

So you now admit that beansprouts are not the sole source of the
infection?

No. *All the infections can be traced back to those as the source.

As they no doubt can to many other circumstantial sources due to a
complete lack of any scientific evidence.

Incidentally, how could that farm be responsible for identical
infections in other parts of the world?

All, I believe, can be traced back to the part of Germany where the
outbreak originated. They are not independent outbreaks which really
would be colossally improbable.

Apparently there are a few independent outbreaks which means you are
still wrong.

Source? *Cite? *Evidence?

So you haven't been following the news properly then?

"The Czech Republic and the US have joined the list of those dealing
with cases amid concern that some of those infected had not visited
Germany and so must have been infected elsewhere."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...spread-germany

Also, as I expected, the truth will out eventually.

"The deadly E. coli virus in Germany has been passed from human to
human for the first time.

Health officials say the discovery was made at a catering company near
Frankfurt. The bacteria has also been found in a river near the city,
but official say its nothing to worry about."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13826537

Yeah sure! They wouldn't want to cause a panic would they? So its in
river water too and not just beansprouts? Lert me see, I wonder how
many people could be infected by river water?

And if it has the effect of making people appreciate the risks
inherent in organic farming, so much the better.

You are completely wrong yet again. The risks are not confined to
organic farming. I assume you have no evidence for your ludicrous
claim, as usual.

The outbreak came from an organic farm and concerns a strain of an
organism that exists only in the human gut and human faeces. Go
figure.

Don't you know what 'organic' means in connection with food?

It means whatever the producers want it to mean. *There is no scientific or
legal definition, only arbitrary unscientific standards laid down by
self-appointed arbiters in their or their associates' own interests.

You are wrong yet again. There are clearly defined and strict organic
standards.

"...EC Council Regulation 2092/91 came into force in 1993. Since then
organic food production in the European Union has been strictly
regulated. Regulation 2092/91 sets out the inputs and practices which
may be used in organic farming and growing, and the inspection system
which must be put in place to ensure this..."

http://www.soilassociation.org/Whatw...6/Default.aspx

Exactly. All veg was under suspicion. All veg should therefore have
been removed from the shelves surely under just that principle.

No, for the reasons given previously.

You haven't given any previously.

You have failed to understand them, obviously. Here's a reminder. One
precautionary principle can override another depending on which is the
most serious.

Do tell us here then which precautionary principles are in conflict here,
which takes precedence, why, and who decides.

How many more times??? If all food is suspect then as a precaution
removing all food will result in starvation!

Indeed. The precautionary principle should be extended to all fruit
and veg throughout the EC until long term trials can establish that
it's totally safe.

That would assume to start with that all foods are considered unsafe
until proven otherwise.

No, not all foods, just those under suspicion. That means all veg.

Wrong. The most implicated in e-coli infections is meat. So why has
there been no meat testing in this connection, especially bearing in
mind its faecal transmission?

Because _everything_ links back to the farm, and to beansprouts from it.

Not everything. There are many possible avenues of contamination and
the only evidence of a source so far is purely circumstantial and
there is still no scientific evidence that the beansprouts were
infected. Also it is now known that it can be passed from human to
human without ANY beansprouts intervening which lays the whole thing
wide open, as I have suggested and despite the German authorities
attempt to brush the matter under the carpet by blaming beansprouts
alone.

Isn't there mandatory general food testing on a regular basis
anyway?

I think you'll find that no-one, not even an organic farm, is
allowed to sell food that kills people. It's for them to ensure that.

Duh! The testing is done by the authorities not the suppliers. You
don't seem to know much about the subject of food. Maybe that explains
your odd views in relation to beansprouts.and precautionary
principles.

No, you're completely wrong as usual. *The authorities do not have the
resources to go round checking on all supplies of food. *All they can do is
make random and isolated inspections of food chain facilities and make
recommendations.

In that case we can assume that many sources of infection escape
detection, as the vast number of e-coli infections from food worldwide
suggests.

*The law applies to the producers. *It's they who must
comply with food safety laws. *And it's they who are liable if things go
wrong.

http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/agenc...theagencydoes/

Clearly suppliers do sell food that kills people until and unless they
are found out by the authorities.

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:51 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:48 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
I doubt that most would qualify as a general source of harm.
Indeed, squatting is completely legal pending civil legal
procedings. You didn't know that did you?

Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it
constitutes aggravated trespass. Very few instances of squatting
actually avoid both of those, so it is generally a criminal
activity.

Evidence?

Shelter says this:

"The law on squatting

Squatting itself is not a criminal offence. However, it is illegal
to get into a property by breaking in or damaging windows and doors.
You could be arrested even if the damage is minimal.

In some cases, squatters can also be prosecuted for other offences.
There is a risk that this could happen if: you don't leave when the
landlord gets a court order, or
a person who normally lives in the property, or has a right to move
in (such as a new tenant) asks you to leave.

Using utilities such as gas, electricity and water without
contacting the suppliers is also illegal."

I suppose you will now tell me, contrary to all knowledge,
experience and common sense, that squatters in general do none of
these things?

In the text you have conveniently deleted you stated, "it is generally
a criminal activity", which is a gross exaggeration and untrue.

It's not conveniently deleted. In fact, it isn't deleted at all. However,
since you only appear able to read what is in the current post, this, again,
is what I said:

"Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or unless it constitutes
aggravated trespass. Very few instances of squatting actually avoid both of
those, so it is generally a criminal activity."

Now tell me without your customary evasion why that is 'a gross exaggeration
and untrue'. Do include how the squatters normally obtain entry into the
property in the first place.


Here is mine...

http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php...&task=view&id=...

That has nothing whatever to do with whether squatting is illegal.

Squatting isn't illegal. That is why i8t is allowed to happen,
frequently.

If it's not illegal, no-one could remove them, could they? But they can.

Ever wondered why, and whether it's perhaps got something to do with the
law?

Also, since squatting is an activity that can be remedied by civil
action, it is manifestly not true that 'squatting is completely
legal'. It is in fact completely illegal. That's why it can be
remedied.

Did you miss 'pending civil legal proceedings'?

Did you miss "Unless of course any criminal damage is caused or
unless it constitutes aggravated trespass"?

You just don't get it do you? Squatting - legal, criminal damage -
illegal, aggravated trespass - illegal, murder - illegal, etc.

No, you're wrong as usual. Squatting itself _is_ illegal. That's why civil
courts can order eviction and repossession. It doesn't just become illegal
'pending civil proceedings'. It always _is_ illegal. In the vast majority
of cases, it's also criminal.

The mere act of squatting is not itself illegal.

Thank you at last!

No, I'm sorry, my last statement was wrong. What I meant to say, which is
the true position as expounded by Shelter, is that mere squatting itself,
with no criminal damage or aggravating circumstances, is not a criminal
offence. It is, however, illegal. That's why the law can be used to remedy
it.


It's the inevitable
accompanying acts that are. It's those that make the vast majority of
squats illegal.

Evidence of vast majority? Most squats are allowed to remain,
sometimes for years, until a court order is obtained.

If the owners don't know about it or can't be bothered to do anything about
it, then the police won't be interested either, unless there is clear
evidence of criminal activity that pushes it up their agenda. Lack of
action on their part can't therefore be taken as evidence of legality. They
would much rather leave such matters up to the owners.

But it doesn't alter the fact, as everyone knows, that criminal damage
almost inevitably accompanies squatting. And criminal damage includes such
things as breaking a window, or doing almost anything else, to gain access
to the property in the first place.

But why do you say that the others would not qualify as a general
source of harm? It will be abundantly clear to anyone here that
protests causing damage, animal rights activists and killer
vegetables cause considerable harm. They should all be subject to
the application of the precautionary principle therefore, shouldn't
they?

They are already.

So, do you agree that's it's right to apply the precautionary
principle in respect of protests causing damage, and squatters,
and animal rights activists, and killer vegetables?

Only if they qualify. Some do, obviously, where prior preventative
measures have been installed by the authorities.

So, now you approve of preventative action, including preventative
policing, which you never did before. That's a turn up.

Why is everything either black or white to you?

Because someone has to decide whether the precautionary principle
should be applied or not, and that's a yes/no question.

But I'm glad you approve of preventative policing. We're making
progress.

You are not making any progress at all because you still seem unable
to understand the difference between criminal and political policing.
Political demonstrations are not crimes and yet they are sometimes
policed pre-emptively and preventatively.

That's right. The preventative policing stops them developing into crimes,
which they invariably tend to if it's not used..


If closure of the farm results in no more infections, and it
seems to be heading that way, then that's proof enough for me
that it was the source.

So we can expect a total absence of any new infections starting
from about now?

You just don't understand, do you? E-coli is an infective agent.
Those who have it can pass it on to others by fecal contamination.
Not everyone who gets it will have got it directly from the
original beansprout source. But everyone who gets it will be
connected in some way to that original source.

Ah so it is not just beansprouts alone then! How do you imagine the
beansprouts were infected in the first place then, assuming they
were at all?

By human faecal contamination. For so many cases to have been
reported, that contamination must have been on quite a large scale
on the farm.

Or, as there was no scientific evidence of infection at all the farm
was not the source.

If you understood at all how facts, observation and logic lead to
conclusions, you'd understand a bit about science, and how it's been proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that the farm was the source.

That
suggests to me that a lack of personal hygiene by one individual is
unlikely to have been the cause, but that it's more likely to have
been the result of using human waste in the production process,
probably as a component of the growth medium for the beans.

I suppose it doesn't occur to you at all that faecal contamination can
occur almost anywhere in all manner of circumstances?

I've given you my hypothesis. Explain now how _you_ think it could have
occurred in so many cases all in one place, all at the same time.


That original source has to be shut down to prevent the seeding of
new outbreaks. And that should restrict the spread of the infection
to those who have been in close contact with those who are already
infected and have not employed effective hygiene measures.

So you now admit that beansprouts are not the sole source of the
infection?

No. All the infections can be traced back to those as the source.

As they no doubt can to many other circumstantial sources due to a
complete lack of any scientific evidence.

No they can't. _All_ the scientific evidence points to the one farm.

Incidentally, how could that farm be responsible for identical
infections in other parts of the world?

All, I believe, can be traced back to the part of Germany where the
outbreak originated. They are not independent outbreaks which
really would be colossally improbable.

Apparently there are a few independent outbreaks which means you are
still wrong.

Source? Cite? Evidence?

So you haven't been following the news properly then?

"The Czech Republic and the US have joined the list of those dealing
with cases amid concern that some of those infected had not visited
Germany and so must have been infected elsewhere."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...spread-germany

That's old news, 16 days ago. I think the 'concerns' expressed there have
now been resolved as either not being due to the E-coli strain in question
or through some contact with others from Germany.

As even that article said, however:

"Germany reported a further 200 cases diagnosed on the first two days of the
month as the total number of people infected worldwide rose above 1,800. The
total number of reported deaths in Germany is 19. Just 11 cases have been
confirmed in England.

All these cases except two are in people who reside in or had recently
visited northern Germany during the incubation period for the infection .
or, in one case, had contact with a visitor from northern Germany," said the
World Health Organisation in a statement."

Find me anything that says at all authoritatively that other outbreaks have
occurred independently of the German one.

Also, as I expected, the truth will out eventually.

"The deadly E. coli virus in Germany has been passed from human to
human for the first time.

Health officials say the discovery was made at a catering company near
Frankfurt. The bacteria has also been found in a river near the city,
but official say its nothing to worry about."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13826537

Yeah sure! They wouldn't want to cause a panic would they? So its in
river water too and not just beansprouts? Lert me see, I wonder how
many people could be infected by river water?

Do you understand the term 'infective agent', Doug? Of course, once it's
out in the community, it can be spread. That's the worry. That's why
there's so much concern to stop it getting out in the first place. That's
why everyone is so up in arms about the organic vegetable farm that let it
out. And that's why all sensible people want to ensure it doesn't happen
again.

So, what is the point you're trying so hard to make?


Wrong. The most implicated in e-coli infections is meat. So why has
there been no meat testing in this connection, especially bearing in
mind its faecal transmission?

Because _everything_ links back to the farm, and to beansprouts from
it.

Not everything. There are many possible avenues of contamination and
the only evidence of a source so far is purely circumstantial and
there is still no scientific evidence that the beansprouts were
infected. Also it is now known that it can be passed from human to
human without ANY beansprouts intervening which lays the whole thing
wide open, as I have suggested and despite the German authorities
attempt to brush the matter under the carpet by blaming beansprouts
alone.

It doesn't leave anything wide open. Of course humans can spread the E-coli
strain. That's never been in doubt, and is indeed the concern. But the
outbreak _undoubtedly_ arose through the sale of contaminated beansprouts
from this one organic farm. You are denying fundamntal truth if you don't
understand that.


Isn't there mandatory general food testing on a regular basis
anyway?

I think you'll find that no-one, not even an organic farm, is
allowed to sell food that kills people. It's for them to ensure
that.

Duh! The testing is done by the authorities not the suppliers. You
don't seem to know much about the subject of food. Maybe that
explains your odd views in relation to beansprouts.and precautionary
principles.

No, you're completely wrong as usual. The authorities do not have the
resources to go round checking on all supplies of food. All they can
do is make random and isolated inspections of food chain facilities
and make recommendations.

In that case we can assume that many sources of infection escape
detection, as the vast number of e-coli infections from food worldwide
suggests.

The law applies to the producers. It's they who must
comply with food safety laws. And it's they who are liable if things
go wrong.

http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/agenc...theagencydoes/

Clearly suppliers do sell food that kills people until and unless they
are found out by the authorities.

Not for long, they don't. The authorities take a pretty dim view if that
happens.

On 19/06/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:

http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/agenc...theagencydoes/

Clearly suppliers do sell food that kills people until and unless they
are found out by the authorities.

What should I avoid in Tescos this week?

On 19/06/2011 11:48, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:

http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/agenc...theagencydoes/

Clearly suppliers do sell food that kills people until and unless they
are found out by the authorities.

What should I avoid in Tescos this week?

The checkout?