On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes in the
>>> UK.
>>
>> So what?
>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl here, but
>> it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of course it wouldnt.
>>
>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in Sweden.
>>
>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden allows
>> computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified material is
>> allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to the murder of people
>> in the documents?
>
> That one is complicated because he was not
> in the USA when he released that informaton.

The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US territory
before they can try him for breaking US law.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:21:35 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 02/04/2024 19:03, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:21:02 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This EV owner has appealed for his unfortunate experience to be a
>>> warning to others contemplating buying an electric car. Take heed, and
>>> learn from his experience if you are wise....
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Yo4LpksWM
>>
>> Anyone daft enough to fork out £120,000 for a vehicle knowing it'll
>> lose more than half its value as soon as it's driven away deserves all
>> they get.
>>
>
>
>He still owes £60k on a car for which he has only been offered £40k, and
>falling by £1k each week. :)

Half his problem is clearly that he went into debt to acquire a
wasting asset. That was compounded by his choice of an EV as that
"asset" and now he's flailing at the world blaming everyone but
himself for his own stupidity.

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:29:26 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 19:12, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 04:53:47 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/04/2024 23:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:27:23 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/04/2024 19:40, blacky wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:43:53 +1100, Tim Streater
>>>>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1 Apr 2024 at 09:38:19 BST, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross
>>>>>>>> Berlin Wall.
>>>>>>>> "A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist
>>>>>>>> regime is
>>>>>>>> coercion, not equality."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How long has Julian Assange been imprisoned without trial?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No time at all, AFAIK.
>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He spent some years in a foreign embassy avoiding the
>>>>>>> judicial process,
>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and is currently in extradition proceedings.
>>>>>> But has had no trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is on remand, which means he has appeared before magistrates.
>>>> But that is not a TRIAL.
>>>
>>> It does, however, make it a lawful detention under Article 5(c) of the
>>> European Convention on Human Rights, pending a fair trial as required
>>> under Article 6.
>> Irrelevant to Jack's question.
>
> That is only because the question was structured so as to imply that
> there is no other lawful reason to hold somebody in prison except for
> having been tried and sentenced.

His question did nothing of the sort.

He was making the point that he has
never seen a TRIAL on the allegations.

>>>>>>> As he has form
>>>>>>> for running away, I expect they have denied him bail.
>>>>>> Still time without trial.

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes in the
>>>> UK.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl here, but
>>> it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of course it
>>> wouldnt.
>>>
>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in Sweden.
>>>
>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden allows
>>> computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified material is
>>> allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to the murder of people
>>> in the documents?

>> That one is complicated because he was not
>> in the USA when he released that informaton.

> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US territory
> before they can try him for breaking US law.

He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did what he
did.

On 02/04/2024 22:47, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:29:26 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2024 19:12, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 04:53:47 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/04/2024 23:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:27:23 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/04/2024 19:40, blacky wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:43:53 +1100, Tim Streater
>>>>>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1 Apr 2024 at 09:38:19 BST, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross
>>>>>>>>> Berlin Wall.
>>>>>>>>> "A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist
>>>>>>>>> regime is
>>>>>>>>> coercion, not equality."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How long has Julian Assange been imprisoned without trial?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No time at all, AFAIK.
>>>>>>>  You are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He spent some years in a foreign embassy avoiding the
>>>>>>>> judicial process,
>>>>>>>  Yes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and is currently in extradition proceedings.
>>>>>>>  But has had no trial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is on remand, which means he has appeared before magistrates.
>>>>>  But that is not a TRIAL.
>>>>
>>>> It does, however, make it a lawful detention under Article 5(c) of
>>>> the European Convention on Human Rights, pending a fair trial as
>>>> required under Article 6.
>>>  Irrelevant to Jack's question.
>>
>> That is only because the question was structured so as to imply that
>> there is no other lawful reason to hold somebody in prison except for
>> having been tried and sentenced.
>
> His question did nothing of the sort.
>
> He was making the point that he has
> never seen a TRIAL on the allegations.

Exactly my point. A trial is not the only reason that somebody may
lawfully be held in prison. Being a flight risk before trial is also a
lawful reason. The trial follows on from that, but may take a long time
coming.

>
>>>>>>>> As he has form
>>>>>>>> for running away, I expect they have denied him bail.
>>>>>>>  Still time without trial.

--
Colin Bignell

On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes in
>>>>> the UK.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl here,
>>>> but it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of course it
>>>> wouldnt.
>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in Sweden.
>>>>
>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden allows
>>>> computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified material is
>>>> allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to the murder of
>>>> people in the documents?
>
>>>  That one is complicated because he was not
>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>
>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US territory
>> before they can try him for breaking US law.
>
> He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did what
> he did.

Of course he can, if that is what the US law says and I would expect a
law against hacking to cover actions anywhere in the world.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:11:53 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 22:47, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:29:26 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2024 19:12, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 04:53:47 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/04/2024 23:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:27:23 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/04/2024 19:40, blacky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:43:53 +1100, Tim Streater
>>>>>>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1 Apr 2024 at 09:38:19 BST, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross
>>>>>>>>>> Berlin Wall.
>>>>>>>>>> "A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist
>>>>>>>>>> regime is
>>>>>>>>>> coercion, not equality."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How long has Julian Assange been imprisoned without trial?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No time at all, AFAIK.
>>>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He spent some years in a foreign embassy avoiding the
>>>>>>>>> judicial process,
>>>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and is currently in extradition proceedings.
>>>>>>>> But has had no trial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is on remand, which means he has appeared before magistrates.
>>>>>> But that is not a TRIAL.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does, however, make it a lawful detention under Article 5(c) of
>>>>> the European Convention on Human Rights, pending a fair trial as
>>>>> required under Article 6.
>>>> Irrelevant to Jack's question.
>>>
>>> That is only because the question was structured so as to imply that
>>> there is no other lawful reason to hold somebody in prison except for
>>> having been tried and sentenced.
>> His question did nothing of the sort.

>> He was making the point that he has
>> never seen a TRIAL on the allegations.

> Exactly my point.

Your point is irrelevant to Jack's question.

> A trial is not the only reason that somebody may lawfully be held in
> prison. Being a flight risk before trial is also a lawful reason. The
> trial follows on from that, but may take a long time coming.

Irrelevant to the fact that Assange has never had a trial.

>>>>>>>>> As he has form
>>>>>>>>> for running away, I expect they have denied him bail.
>>>>>>>> Still time without trial.

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:12:01 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes in
>>>>>> the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?
>>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl here,
>>>>> but it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of course it
>>>>> wouldnt.
>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in Sweden.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden allows
>>>>> computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified material is
>>>>> allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to the murder of
>>>>> people in the documents?
>>
>>>> That one is complicated because he was not
>>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>>
>>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US territory
>>> before they can try him for breaking US law.
>> He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did what
>> he did.

> Of course he can, if that is what the US law says

So you are seriously claiming that any country
can proclaim that any action any foreigner does
outside its territory is illegal ? BULLSHIT.

> and I would expect a law against hackingto cover actions anywhere in
> the world.

He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
made it publicly available.

On 02/04/2024 23:39, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:12:01 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee
>>>>> <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes in
>>>>>>> the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl here,
>>>>>> but it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of course
>>>>>> it wouldnt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in Sweden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden
>>>>>> allows computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified
>>>>>> material is allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to the
>>>>>> murder of people in the documents?
>>>
>>>>>  That one is complicated because he was not
>>>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>>>
>>>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US
>>>> territory before they can try him for breaking US law.
>>>  He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did
>>> what he did.
>
>> Of course he can, if that is what the US law says
>
> So you are seriously claiming that any country
> can proclaim that any action any foreigner does
> outside its territory is illegal ?  BULLSHIT.

Of course they can. Governments can pass any law they can get through
their legislature. Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the
problem.

>
>> and I would expect a  law against hackingto cover actions anywhere in
>> the world.
>
> He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
> made it publicly available.

He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit computer
intrusion, i.e. hacking. However, the espionage charges are another law
that it would be reasonable to expect would not be restricted to actions
within the country.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:00:04 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 23:39, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:12:01 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee
>>>>>> <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes in
>>>>>>>> the UK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl here,
>>>>>>> but it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of course
>>>>>>> it wouldnt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in
>>>>>>>> Sweden.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden
>>>>>>> allows computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified
>>>>>>> material is allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to the
>>>>>>> murder of people in the documents?
>>>>
>>>>>> That one is complicated because he was not
>>>>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>>>>
>>>>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US
>>>>> territory before they can try him for breaking US law.
>>>> He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did
>>>> what he did.
>>
>>> Of course he can, if that is what the US law says
>> So you are seriously claiming that any country
>> can proclaim that any action any foreigner does
>> outside its territory is illegal ? BULLSHIT.
>
> Of course they can. Governments can pass any law they can get through
> their legislature.

Doesnt make it legal.

> Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the problem.
>
>>
>>> and I would expect a law against hackingto cover actions anywhere in
>>> the world.
>> He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
>> made it publicly available.
>
> He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit computer
> intrusion, i.e. hacking.

He never did anything like that. That's just the usual stupid ambit
claim that the yank legal system gets up to so they can plea bargain.

> However, the espionage charges are another law that it would be
> reasonable to expect would notbe restricted to actions within the
> country.

No country gets any say about what foreigners do outside their country

On 03/04/2024 00:10, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:00:04 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2024 23:39, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:12:01 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee
>>>>>>> <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes
>>>>>>>>> in the UK.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl
>>>>>>>> here, but it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of
>>>>>>>> course it wouldnt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in
>>>>>>>>> Sweden.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden
>>>>>>>> allows computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified
>>>>>>>> material is allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to
>>>>>>>> the murder of people in the documents?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  That one is complicated because he was not
>>>>>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US
>>>>>> territory before they can try him for breaking US law.
>>>>>  He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did
>>>>> what he did.
>>>
>>>> Of course he can, if that is what the US law says
>>>  So you are seriously claiming that any country
>>> can proclaim that any action any foreigner does
>>> outside its territory is illegal ?  BULLSHIT.
>>
>> Of course they can. Governments can pass any law they can get through
>> their legislature.
>
> Doesnt make it legal.

By definition, any law passed by a country is legal.

>
>> Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the problem.
>>
>>>
>>>> and I would expect a  law against hackingto cover actions anywhere
>>>> in the world.
>>>  He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
>>> made it publicly available.
>>
>> He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit computer
>> intrusion, i.e. hacking.
>
> He never did anything like that. That's just the usual stupid ambit
> claim that the yank legal system gets up to so they can plea bargain.

That was the first charge brought against him and it alleges that he
helped Chelsea Manning crack a password hash, to allow Manning to use a
different user name to download the documents. Whether or not he did it,
is something that the Courts would need to decide. As it only accounts
for five years of the 170 he faces if convicted of every charge, I doubt
it is anything to do with plea bargaining.

>
>> However, the espionage charges are another law that it would be
>> reasonable to expect would notbe restricted to actions  within the
>> country.
>
> No country gets any say about what foreigners do outside their country

If that were true, the extradition proceedings would already have failed.

--
Colin Bignell

On 31 Mar 2024 09:47:46 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:

>Andy Bennett <aben@ben37j.com> wrote:
>> On 30/03/2024 22:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> This EV owner has appealed for his unfortunate experience to be a
>>> warning to others contemplating buying an electric car. Take heed, and
>>> learn from his experience if you are wise....
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Yo4LpksWM
>>>
>> That guy is renowned for his stupid youtube videos - buys a top end
>> luxury EV and then makes money to pay for it by knocking his purchase.
>> Very entertaining for the tin foil hat brigade.
>> Personally having owned EVs for the last 7 years I would never go back
>> to a primitive oil burning appliance.
>>
>
>Ditto. I’ve just looked at my fuel cost for my EV last year. 16,000 miles
>for under £300.
>

Surely you need to add to that the percentage battery life/cost used?

Any idea what that might be?

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On 03/04/2024 12:21, AnthonyL wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2024 09:47:46 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
>
>> Andy Bennett <aben@ben37j.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2024 22:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> This EV owner has appealed for his unfortunate experience to be a
>>>> warning to others contemplating buying an electric car. Take heed, and
>>>> learn from his experience if you are wise....
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Yo4LpksWM
>>>>
>>> That guy is renowned for his stupid youtube videos - buys a top end
>>> luxury EV and then makes money to pay for it by knocking his purchase.
>>> Very entertaining for the tin foil hat brigade.
>>> Personally having owned EVs for the last 7 years I would never go back
>>> to a primitive oil burning appliance.
>>>
>>
>> Ditto. I’ve just looked at my fuel cost for my EV last year. 16,000 miles
>> for under £300.
>>
>
> Surely you need to add to that the percentage battery life/cost used?
>
> Any idea what that might be?

In 2022, 7-year old EVs had lost about 5% capacity. However, battery
technology has improved and it is likely that current cars will be
better than that at the same age.

On 03/04/2024 12:37, SteveW wrote:
> On 03/04/2024 12:21, AnthonyL wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2024 09:47:46 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Bennett <aben@ben37j.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2024 22:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> This EV owner has appealed for his unfortunate experience to be a
>>>>> warning to others contemplating buying an electric car. Take heed, and
>>>>> learn from his experience if you are wise....
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Yo4LpksWM
>>>>>
>>>> That guy is renowned for his stupid youtube videos - buys a top end
>>>> luxury EV and then makes money to pay for it by knocking his purchase.
>>>> Very entertaining for the tin foil hat brigade.
>>>> Personally having owned EVs for the last 7 years I would never go back
>>>> to a primitive oil burning appliance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ditto. I’ve just looked at my fuel cost for my EV last year. 16,000
>>> miles
>>> for under £300.
>>>
>>
>> Surely you need to add to that the percentage battery life/cost used?
>>
>> Any idea what that might be?
>
> In 2022, 7-year old EVs had lost about 5% capacity. However, battery
> technology has improved and it is likely that current cars will be
> better than that at the same age.
>

Isn't it more like 2.5 to 3% per year and more to do with charging
regimes and not trying to get the maximum range from the battery too often

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 03/04/2024 12:21, AnthonyL wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2024 09:47:46 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
>
>> Andy Bennett <aben@ben37j.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2024 22:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> This EV owner has appealed for his unfortunate experience to be a
>>>> warning to others contemplating buying an electric car. Take heed, and
>>>> learn from his experience if you are wise....
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Yo4LpksWM
>>>>
>>> That guy is renowned for his stupid youtube videos - buys a top end
>>> luxury EV and then makes money to pay for it by knocking his purchase.
>>> Very entertaining for the tin foil hat brigade.
>>> Personally having owned EVs for the last 7 years I would never go back
>>> to a primitive oil burning appliance.
>>>
>>
>> Ditto. I’ve just looked at my fuel cost for my EV last year. 16,000 miles
>> for under £300.
>>
>
> Surely you need to add to that the percentage battery life/cost used?
>
> Any idea what that might be?
>
>
If you Believe in EVs, the fact that the numbers simply don't add up is
not a subject of great interest.

Only companies that run car fleets tend to do total cost of ownership
calculations.
Or, if they are to lazy, simply lease the cars for a fixed annual cost.

Try looking at a lease cost of any EV versus a similar IC to get an
idea. Its also a good way to insulate yourself from ownership hassles,
and always drive the latest models

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Isn't it more like 2.5 to 3% per year and more to do with charging
> regimes and not trying to get the maximum range from the battery too often

1-2% per year, but it flattens out after a while:
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/lessons-in-electric-car-battery-health

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 21:14:47 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 03/04/2024 00:10, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:00:04 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2024 23:39, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:12:01 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee
>>>>>>>> <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even crimes
>>>>>>>>>> in the UK.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl
>>>>>>>>> here, but it was legal in that Country, would that be right? Of
>>>>>>>>> course it wouldnt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in
>>>>>>>>>> Sweden.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden
>>>>>>>>> allows computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of classified
>>>>>>>>> material is allowed in Sweden, when that information leads to
>>>>>>>>> the murder of people in the documents?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That one is complicated because he was not
>>>>>>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US
>>>>>>> territory before they can try him for breaking US law.
>>>>>> He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did
>>>>>> what he did.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course he can, if that is what the US law says
>>>> So you are seriously claiming that any country
>>>> can proclaim that any action any foreigner does
>>>> outside its territory is illegal ? BULLSHIT.
>>>
>>> Of course they can. Governments can pass any law they can get through
>>> their legislature.
>> Doesnt make it legal.
>
> By definition, any law passed by a country is legal.

Wrong, most obviously when the law is unconstitutional.

>>> Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the problem.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and I would expect a law against hackingto cover actions anywhere
>>>>> in the world.
>>>> He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
>>>> made it publicly available.
>>>
>>> He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit computer
>>> intrusion, i.e. hacking.

>> He never did anything like that. That's just the usual stupid ambit
>> claim that the yank legal system gets up to so they can plea bargain.

> That was the first charge brought against him and it alleges thathe
> helped Chelsea Manning crack a password hash, to allowManning to use a
> different user name to download the documents.

That's not hacking.

> Whether or not he did it, is somethingthat the Courts would need to
> decide.

No court can decide that the earth is flat.

Or more strictly the court can decide that but that has no meaning.

> As it only accounts for five years of the 170 he faces if convictedof
> every charge, I doubt it is anything to do with plea bargaining.

They can agree to drop the espionage charge which has
no chance of succeeding, if he pleads guilty to the hacking
charge which has a MUCH lower penalty. That's how plea
bargains work.

>>> However, the espionage charges are another law that it would be
>>> reasonable to expect would notbe restricted to actions within the
>>> country.

>> No country gets any say about what foreigners do outside their country

> If that were true, the extradition proceedings would already have failed.

Wrong when the UK authoritys are pandering to
the USA because they don't agree with what he did.

On 03/04/2024 18:58, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 21:14:47 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/04/2024 00:10, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:00:04 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/04/2024 23:39, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:12:01 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee
>>>>>>>>> <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even
>>>>>>>>>>> crimes in the UK.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl
>>>>>>>>>> here, but it was legal in that Country, would that be right?
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it wouldnt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in
>>>>>>>>>>> Sweden.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden
>>>>>>>>>> allows computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of
>>>>>>>>>> classified material is allowed in Sweden, when that
>>>>>>>>>> information leads to the murder of people in the documents?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  That one is complicated because he was not
>>>>>>>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US
>>>>>>>> territory before they can try him for breaking US law.
>>>>>>>  He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he
>>>>>>> did what he did.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course he can, if that is what the US law says
>>>>>  So you are seriously claiming that any country
>>>>> can proclaim that any action any foreigner does
>>>>> outside its territory is illegal ?  BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they can. Governments can pass any law they can get
>>>> through their legislature.
>>>  Doesnt make it legal.
>>
>> By definition, any law passed by a country is legal.
>
> Wrong, most obviously when the law is unconstitutional.

Most of the laws passed by the Nazis were unconstitutional, but they had
managed to get the 1933 Enabling Act passed, which legally allowed them
to ignore it. The occupying powers needed to get another law passed in
1945 to repeal it.

>
>>>> Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and I would expect a  law against hackingto cover actions anywhere
>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>  He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
>>>>> made it publicly available.
>>>>
>>>> He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit
>>>> computer intrusion, i.e. hacking.
>
>>>  He never did anything like that. That's just the usual stupid ambit
>>> claim that the yank legal system gets up to so they can plea bargain.
>
>> That was the first charge brought against him and it alleges thathe
>> helped Chelsea Manning crack a password hash, to allowManning to use
>> a  different user name to download the documents.
>
> That's not hacking.

It is, however, conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, which is what
he is charged with.

>> Whether or not he did it,  is somethingthat the Courts would need to
>> decide.
>
> No court can decide that the earth is flat.
>
> Or more strictly the court can decide that but that has no meaning.
>
>> As it only accounts  for five years of the 170 he faces if convictedof
>> every charge, I doubt  it is anything to do with plea bargaining.
>
> They can agree to drop the espionage charge which has
> no chance of succeeding, if he pleads guilty to the hacking
> charge which has a MUCH lower penalty. That's how plea
> bargains work...

170 years down to five is highly improbable. The main importance of the
charge is probably that it is something that is clearly illegal in the
UK, so can properly be used as a reason to extradite.

--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 07:00:33 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 03/04/2024 18:58, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 21:14:47 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/04/2024 00:10, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:00:04 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/04/2024 23:39, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:12:01 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:37:24 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 19:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:57:25 +1100, Alan Lee
>>>>>>>>>> <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:44, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the crimes he was accused of in Sweden are not even
>>>>>>>>>>>> crimes in the UK.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>>>>>> If he escaped to another country after fucking a 12 yo girl
>>>>>>>>>>> here, but it was legal in that Country, would that be right?
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it wouldnt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, the crimes that the US want him for are not crimes in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sweden.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, so what? Different alleged crimes. And really, Sweden
>>>>>>>>>>> allows computer hacking to go unpunished? Release of
>>>>>>>>>>> classified material is allowed in Sweden, when that
>>>>>>>>>>> information leads to the murder of people in the documents?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That one is complicated because he was not
>>>>>>>>>> in the USA when he released that informaton.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US
>>>>>>>>> territory before they can try him for breaking US law.
>>>>>>>> He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he
>>>>>>>> did what he did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course he can, if that is what the US law says
>>>>>> So you are seriously claiming that any country
>>>>>> can proclaim that any action any foreigner does
>>>>>> outside its territory is illegal ? BULLSHIT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they can. Governments can pass any law they can get
>>>>> through their legislature.
>>>> Doesnt make it legal.
>>>
>>> By definition, any law passed by a country is legal.
>> Wrong, most obviously when the law is unconstitutional.

> Most of the laws passed by the Nazis were unconstitutional,

Bullshit.

> but they had managed to get the 1933 Enabling Actpassed, which legally
> allowed them to ignore it.

More bullshit.

> The occupying powers needed to getanother law passed in 1945 to repeal
> it.

More bullshit.

Irrelevant to the current situation with a US law.

>>>>> Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I would expect a law against hackingto cover actions anywhere
>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>> He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
>>>>>> made it publicly available.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit
>>>>> computer intrusion, i.e. hacking.
>>
>>>> He never did anything like that. That's just the usual stupid ambit
>>>> claim that the yank legal system gets up to so they can plea bargain.
>>
>>> That was the first charge brought against him and it alleges thathe
>>> helped Chelsea Manning crack a password hash, to allowManning to use
>>> a different user name to download the documents.

>> That's not hacking.

> It is,

Bullshit.

> however, conspiracy to commit computerintrusion, which is what he is
> charged with.

That is not what Assange did.

>>> Whether or not he did it, is somethingthat the Courts would need to
>>> decide.
>> No court can decide that the earth is flat.
>> Or more strictly the court can decide that but that has no meaning.
>>
>>> As it only accounts for five years of the 170 he faces if convictedof
>>> every charge, I doubt it is anything to do with plea bargaining.
>> They can agree to drop the espionage charge which has
>> no chance of succeeding, if he pleads guilty to the hacking
>> charge which has a MUCH lower penalty. That's how plea
>> bargains work...

> 170 years down to five is highly improbable.

An ambit claim of espionage plea bargained
down to an admission of hacking isnt.

> The main importance of the charge is probablythat it is something that
> is clearly illegal in the UK,so can properly be used as a reason to
> extradite.

The crime does not have to be illegal in the
country it was done in to qualify for extradition
to a country that the crime is illegal in.

On 03/04/2024 23:24, Rod Speed wrote:
> The crime does not have to be illegal in the
> country it was done in to qualify for extradition
> to a country that the crime is illegal in.

I didnt realise we had a Supreme Court Judge on here.
Legal Minds in the USA Attorneys Office, and the UK Prosecutor, must be
losing sleep that such a great mind is ready to defend Assange, and
prove he is both innocent and held illegally.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:00:33 +0100
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:

> On 03/04/2024 18:58, Rod Speed wrote:

> >
> > They can agree to drop the espionage charge which has
> > no chance of succeeding, if he pleads guilty to the hacking
> > charge which has a MUCH lower penalty. That's how plea
> > bargains work...
>
> 170 years down to five is highly improbable. The main importance of
> the charge is probably that it is something that is clearly illegal
> in the UK, so can properly be used as a reason to extradite.
>
>

The sentence is irrelevant, he will die soon after arriving in the USA.

--
Joe

On 04/04/2024 10:39, Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:00:33 +0100
> Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/04/2024 18:58, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>>
>>> They can agree to drop the espionage charge which has
>>> no chance of succeeding, if he pleads guilty to the hacking
>>> charge which has a MUCH lower penalty. That's how plea
>>> bargains work...
>>
>> 170 years down to five is highly improbable. The main importance of
>> the charge is probably that it is something that is clearly illegal
>> in the UK, so can properly be used as a reason to extradite.
>>
>>
>
> The sentence is irrelevant, he will die soon after arriving in the USA.
>

Not by any judicial process, as he won't be extradited if that is a
possibility. In any case, spending the rest of his life in an American
prison would probably be a better deterrent to others thinking of
following in his footsteps.

--
Colin Bignell

On 03/04/2024 23:24, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 07:00:33 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/04/2024 18:58, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 21:14:47 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
....
>>>> By definition, any law passed by a country is legal.
>>>  Wrong, most obviously when the law is unconstitutional.
>
>> Most of the laws passed by the Nazis were unconstitutional,
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> but they had  managed to get the 1933 Enabling Act passed,  which
>> legally allowed them  to ignore it.
>
> More bullshit.
>
>> The occupying powers needed to get another law passed in  1945 to
>> repeal it.
>
> More bullshit.

I see I have triggered your standard response to anything you cannot
counter by any other means.

>
> Irrelevant to the current situation with a US law.

The US Constitution is an excellent example of the mutability of a
written constitution. There have been 33 amendments, 27 of which have
been ratified, two of which have failed and four of which are, as yet,
unratified. However, I can't see anything in it that prevents the
prosecution of foreigners for crimes committed against the USA. Perhaps
you could clarify what part you think applies?

>
>>>>>> Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I would expect a  law against hackingto cover actions
>>>>>>>> anywhere in the world.
>>>>>>>  He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and
>>>>>>> made it publicly available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit
>>>>>> computer intrusion, i.e. hacking.
>>>
>>>>>  He never did anything like that. That's just the usual stupid ambit
>>>>> claim that the yank legal system gets up to so they can plea bargain.
>>>
>>>> That was the first charge brought against him and it alleges thathe
>>>> helped Chelsea Manning crack a password hash, to allowManning to use
>>>> a  different user name to download the documents.
>
>>>  That's not hacking.
>
>> It is,
>
> Bullshit.

Another of your techniques, splitting text, to take it out of context.

>
>> however, conspiracy to commit computerintrusion, which is what  he is
>> charged with.
>
> That is not what Assange did...

It is what he is accused of. However, as that has yet to be proven in
Court he is, of course, currently innocent, pending a possible proof of
guilt.

--
Colin Bignell

On 4 Apr 2024 at 13:02:06 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:

> The US Constitution is an excellent example of the mutability of a
> written constitution There have been 33 amendments, 27 of which have
> been ratified ...

I would take issue with this. It's an 18thC constitution, and very hard to
modify. IIRC, most of the amendments to which you refer, occurred very soon
after the iniital adoption of the document.

By contrast, our constitution (which is mostly written, no matter what anyone
says), has been able to be modified over the years, so that it has morphed
from our being ruled by a monarch, one with considerable powers), to a
constitutional monarchy. And without a civil war, too (yes I know we had one,
but that was earlier and led to important constitutional change and new
constitutional documents, such as the Bill of Rights, etc).

In the 18thC, if the King disliked the French - then we were at war with the
French. Not long ago, Dubbya didn't like Saddam - so the US was at war with
Iraq. Here we, at least, have moved on from that absolutist position.

--
First of all, a message to English left-wing journalists and intellectuals generally: 'Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don't imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet régime, or any other régime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.'

George Orwell, 1 Sept 1944

On 04/04/2024 15:33, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2024 at 13:02:06 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> The US Constitution is an excellent example of the mutability of a
>> written constitution There have been 33 amendments, 27 of which have
>> been ratified ...
>
> I would take issue with this. It's an 18thC constitution, and very hard to
> modify. IIRC, most of the amendments to which you refer, occurred very soon
> after the iniital adoption of the document.

1-10 and 27 were all proposed at the same time, although the last took
over 200 years to ratify. 12-15 were 19th century and the remainder 20th
century. However, my point was that a constitution is not written in
stone. It can be amended by the very people who make laws under it.

> By contrast, our constitution (which is mostly written, no matter what anyone
> says),

Although not in a single document, headed 'Constitution of the United
Kingdom'

> has been able to be modified over the years, so that it has morphed
> from our being ruled by a monarch, one with considerable powers), to a
> constitutional monarchy. And without a civil war, too (yes I know we had one,
> but that was earlier and led to important constitutional change and new
> constitutional documents, such as the Bill of Rights, etc).

Also demonstrating that a constitution is mutable, so saying that
something is unconstitutional, can only be accurate at a specific point
in time, if at all.

> In the 18thC, if the King disliked the French - then we were at war with the
> French. Not long ago, Dubbya didn't like Saddam - so the US was at war with
> Iraq.

I thought that was more to do with his friends wanting the oil concessions.

> Here we, at least, have moved on from that absolutist position.

--
Colin Bignell