From today’s Telegraph:
“We are in northern New Mexico, … Its 500,000 photovoltaic panels will generate 30 megawatts of electricity, enough, in the popular measurement, to power 9,000 homes.”.
So I ask myself, “How much of the solar energy, converted to electrical energy, will be used to power air-conditioners in these homes in New Mexico?”.
From today’s Grauniad:
(“Cat bin woman fined £250“). Again, it’s not about pets (Two cats own me) but about logic.
“”The media interest in this case has resulted in you being vilified in some quarters and I have taken that into account,” [the district judge] said.”
So, OK. The punishment fits the crime, with a pre-imposed penalty taken into account.
I trust the judge.
But does this mean that it is OK for the media to vilify? (“The media interest in this case has resulted in you being vilified in some quarters and I have taken that into account ..”).
Shouldn’t the person be assumed innocent, by everybody, until proven guilty?
It’s not as if the lady had a chance of escaping punishment. It was a CCTV footage that served as mute witness, after all.
How do you feel about this:
If the media had NOT vilified the lady, might she have been hit with a much stiffer punishment, not ameliorated by vilification?
And might that not have served as a better precedent for any following acts, by the lady or by others?
Has the media shot itself in the foot by pre-empting punishment here?
From now on, if you are caught dumping a cat into a wheelie bin, your lawyer can play up the vilification-thing and get the fine played down.
Bad media! Bad!!