The bill also says that it is immaterial whether the householder had a "safe and practicable" opportunity to retreat from the dwelling before using the force.
Doc Ruby wrote: » Probably, a couple of things though, they have a lot of unmarried men who will never get married due to their one child policy, with the ongoing recessions across the west their unemployment is rising (and economic growth is the only glue really holding China together), so they need a distraction, and international approval is becoming less important as domestic demand grows.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » From todays Examiner. Pity they just wont allow us the proper tools for the job!!:D Bill to give homeowners right to kill intruders By Stephen Rogers Friday, December 09, 2011HOUSEHOLDERS will have a legal right to use force up to and including killing an intruder in defence of homes and families, as long as they can prove they honestly believed their actions were "reasonable". Justice Minister Alan Shatter brought the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Bill 2010 before the Seanad, where he told senators the "harsh reality of crime and in particular the crime of burglary" had to be addressed. He said nobody could disagree with the proposition that people should feel safe in their own homes and that an intrusion was "an attack on our peace of mind that can destroy a person’s sense of personal security and cause disturbance for many years after it has occurred". "That is why the law has always seen an intrusion into the home as a particularly egregious offence," he said. Until now common law has provided that people can use force to protect themselves, others and to protect property. The bill proposed by the Government clarifies and strengthens the existing legislation when it comes to protecting the home. The bill also says that it is immaterial whether the householder had a "safe and practicable" opportunity to retreat from the dwelling before using the force. Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bill-to-give-homeowners-right-to-kill-intruders-176645.html#ixzz1g2Tg7Vp5
kildare.17hmr wrote: » About bloody time, thats great news
krissovo wrote: » Sounds like its been thought through.
kildare.17hmr wrote: » a few cheap cartons of cigarettes would be a good investment if your ever in Poland or the likes where you can get a box of smokes for a euro or so. The whisky is a good one 2 i think or any spirit for that matter. People will always want these things.
grapeape wrote: » And pouchs of tabacco
kildare.17hmr wrote: » yes defo tobacco pouchs. Small enough to keep loads in a small place and go alot further than a box of smokes
Doc Ruby wrote: » Plus you can break them up into any denominations you like.
johngalway wrote: » What would you think those items to be? That is the question
johngalway wrote: » Not sure if this is the right forum for it or not but here goes... I had a big post written out, then highlighted it to copy into another forum and accidentally pasted something else in it's place and couldn't Undo :clapper: This comes from several threads I've been reading on several forums, and a chat I had with a friend today. One thing I would like to be left out of this is the politics of the Euro, the EU, the UK, the ROI and any other country, start another thread for them please The scenario is this. You have X amount of a currency which is in danger of collapse, let's say a few thousand. You want to convert that paper money into something tangible that after the **** hit's the fan that would have retained it's value through that messy transition. We first talked of Gold, but I think gold is in a bubble at the moment. Too many are investing in it, it's like property was 10 years ago, sure the value can only go up (until Italy or some other large country dumps it's thousands of tons of gold onto the market to raise cash). We did agree that smaller value gold coins would be easier to dispose of post currency collapse than large value coins, better odds on people having small sums of money to spend than large. So Gold was ruled out. Then we moved onto foreign currency. But, paper money is all about confidence, if a major world currency were to collapse that collapse would have major repercussions for economies all around the world, from those economies that make things like China, to consumer/service economies like the EU/USA. There is also the question of what type of limits, charges and taxes would be applied to foreign currency conversion post currency collapse, which could be punitive. I don't think foreign currency is as good a bet as is made out. So that was ruled out. Farm land was mentioned, and I think there is some merit to that idea. Food can be grown, animals raised, allotments leased out, there are options there. But, there is a large problem in that land isn't always sold quickly if one needed to liquidate that asset and turn it into new currency paper money for any reason. Two other suggestions were whiskey and ammunition. I don't believe whiskey would run short but it may retain it's value, I'm just not sure, it doesn't feel certain to me. Ammunition has the big problem of legality, one can only hold so many rounds in this jurisdiction, BUT, even with things going well importers are sometimes slow and there have been ammo shortages. I'd not like to have a house fire storing either! We didn't settle on any item or items being a good idea to date. What we did agree was that lower to medium value items, which keep in good/perfect condition over time and are easily converted back into currency would be a good idea. What would you think those items to be? That is the question
kildare.17hmr wrote: » Where are ya gettin an acre of land for 5k tho??
krissovo wrote: » 5k is the going rate for remote arable land in North Cork at the moment. Its listed as 8k but locals are accepting 5k cash.
kildare.17hmr wrote: » nice did not know that, buy a couple of acres and build a 'temporary' building, log cabin or the likes! How remote are you talking?
krissovo wrote: » In this general area, 10 mins from nearest spar shop at a fair pacehttp://maps.google.ie/maps?q=tooreen+cork&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4844a32f66578b15:0x2600c7a819bae061,Tooreen,+Co.+Cork&gl=ie&ei=S93lTsmhM82GhQfIvdjUBA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q8gEwAA
Doc Ruby wrote: » What are the green areas on the map, forests?
Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region. The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years. In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed. "Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the shear scale and the high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them," he said. Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.
Doc Ruby wrote: » If that lot goes off like a planet sized champagne bottle, scientists reckon we could immediately be in a runaway global warming scenario.
Tabnabs wrote: » Can I claim my carbon tax payments back then? Told you it wasn't my fault
The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region "boils over," ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years; the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict.
kildare.17hmr wrote: » save the van hire and ill drive ya lad! When are we goin? Where are ya gettin an acre of land for 5k tho??
