Jeremy Buckingham, NSW Greens MP, has set fire to methane gas bubbling out of the Condamine River in Queensland and has a video of the event on Facebook.

Is this the action of a devoted environmentalist or a dill desperate for publicity?

Is Mise,

And you're not particularly interested in the fact that a river encircled by CSG operations can actually be set on fire?

Of course he did it to publicise the environmental aspect.

Since when did setting fires exhibit 'environmental awareness'?

It was a shameless, misleading political stunt from the headline hunting Greens 'Protest' Party. Here, from the always green left sensitive ABC that always tries to put the best spin on Greens' stunts and never asks the Greens any awkward questions,

<Professor Damian Barrett, the CSIRO's lead researcher into unconventional gas, has been monitoring the Condamine gas seeps.

The isotopic signature is telling us it's coming from coal at that point in the landscape but coal is quite close to the surface and there's a naturally existing small fault line, which cuts the river at that point," he said.

He said research over the past 12 months showed the rate of the flow was increasing.

Origin Energy, which operates CSG wells in the district, has also been monitoring the bubbling.

"We're aware of concerns regarding bubbling of the Condamine River, in particular, recent videos demonstrating that this naturally occurring gas is flammable when ignited," a statement from the company said.

"We understand that this can be worrying, however, the seeps pose no risk to the environment, or to public safety, providing people show common sense and act responsibly around them.

"Ongoing research has identified several scenarios that could be contributing to the seeps including the natural geology and faults (formed tens-of-millions of years ago), natural events such as drought and flood cycles as well as some human activity, which includes water bores and coal seam gas operations.">

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-23/condamine-river-bubbling-methane-gas-set-alight-greens-mp/7352578

Let him alone. At least he isn't out pushing the grooming of kids or encouraging rapist to immigrate to Europe like other members of his party. Let him carry on with his childish stunts.

Human Headline Greens, "It's a conspiracy".

That appeals to the demographic the Greens are chasing.

The CSIRO has come out strongly to say that it is extremely unlikely that the methane seepage has anything to do with the CSG plants nearby. Apparently methane seepages are common near large coal seams such as those exploited by CSG companies.

The science is in! It looks as though Jeremy Buckingham's cheap political stunt has gone up in flames (sic) leaving him looking like a scientific ignoramus.

I think its good to see politicians actually doing something useful.
I don't care much for the Greens or for the politics of it, but I think its good that the potential dangers of CSG have been displayed for all to see.

Its not a conspiracy.
Its just when corporations and government get together and money changes hands and deals are done over expensive lunches that any issues that stand in the way of profits are pushed aside.

If the methane is naturally seeping out, it's grossly irresponsible to allow fracking anywhere in the area.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Shadow,

"The CSIRO has come out strongly to say that it is extremely unlikely that the methane seepage has anything to do with the CSG plants nearby."

I know that one CSIRO scientist has been quoted as saying it's unlikely, but this is the first I've heard of that much stronger response. Do you have a reference?

Dear Is Mise,

We can certainly question the actions of
Jeremy Buckingham, the NSW Greens MP who posted a video
to Facebook showing him lighting the surface of the
Condamine river, causing flames up around his boat.
To me it appears to be a desperate act from an MP
who has a record of being passionate about protecting
our country's lands, water, and communities, and wanting us
to invest in renewable energy.

We can certainly question his motives when he claims
that the flames are a result of the methane gas
build up linked to the coal seam gas industry and
fracking operations nearby - owned by Rio Tinto.
However, in all fairness
we also need to question the motives of
the government-funded science
body - CSIRO who says it is unlikely that the gas seep
is linked to fracking.

When looking at the motives of each - it is well
documented that Mr Buckingham has been a leader in the
campaign to protect land, water, and communities from
the threat of coal seam gas, while CSIRO - needs no more
cuts to its funding from the government.

Personally, I would not brush Mr Buckingham aside as a dill.
Nor would I blame CSIRO for trying to preserve its
funding.

cont'd ...

This is obviously a recent event that did not exist
previously. If it is not linked to methane gas -
where is it coming from? Also I'm sure that Mr
Buckinghame has been alerted to this by the local
community members who must be concerned. This problem
did not exist previously, until the involvement of
Rio Tinto and their activity in the area.

"Nor would I blame CSIRO for trying to preserve its funding"

It you really mean what that implies about its ethics and professionalism, you would be demanding for CSIRO to be sold or failing that, disbanded.

This is probably the stupidest post you'll read all day but isn't the Condamine over the Range, and hasn't it been subject to drought for the last three or four years ? Wouldn't the river bed be bone-dry, the river detritus decomposing and the coal seams more open near that fault line ?

An idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing:

Joe

Trust a Green to be arson about.

Greens and matches, or worse those automatic Bic lighters (shudder, shudder). There needs to be a tightening of regulations. If one child is saved from a fire bug Interstate Green etc etc.

He got his publicity. That is what the Greens 'Protest' Party is all about.

Next?

Loudmouth,

Due to the fact that there was a boat on the river (which he was in when he set the surface alight) it was clear the river bed was not bone dry! And having previously been dry would not cause anaerobic conditions in the river now, so the river itself was not the source of the methane; the coal seam must be. And its isotopic signature confirms that.

It's possible it was a coincidence that the gas leak from the coal seam into the river had nothing to do with the CSG operations, and indeed a CSIRO scientist monitoring it considers a link unlikely (though possible). No doubt we will hear a lot more about it in the future as more information becomes available, but meanwhile I consider a coincidence to be extremely unlikely. Dewatering (and a few km away, fracking) means that gas can move more freely through the coal seam. We know that previous CSG schemes around the world have resulted in gas leaks into rivers. But I'm not aware of anywhere where this has happened naturally in sufficient quantities to enable the river to be set on fire.

When will we know if the fool has managed to set a coal seam alight along the bank somewhere?

Those things can smoulder for hundreds of years.

The publicity would have been worth it, right? The ends justify the means.

Aidan, how could fracking increase the risk?

Foxy, I have heard stories about similar situation many years ago where bores have ignited.

Gas is a naturally occurring substance that I presume is continually building increased pressure and perhaps if untapped may well find its own way to the surface in the form of a huge bang. Just a theory.

CSG is also a perfect example of value adding a bi product that was previously extracted but wasted during the coal extraction process. Art least now it creates wealth and jobs and it is tipped to be a 100+ year industry. let's hope.

Since when did setting fires exhibit 'environmental awareness'?

For me, it exhibits environmental passion to set fire to a river, enough to show in visuals, just how badly the river is polluted.

A picture tells a thousand words.

sure its risky but fracking is also risky.

Readers should know that its a well known tactic to divert attention away from environmental, and other issues, by waiting until one or two people do something wrong and then focus on their act, call it a crime and then infer they are reckless, dangerous ...... which then automatically means they are a "TERRORIST."

I find it odd that concern about what this bloke MAY have done seems to be far greater than the risk that what the fracking is doing. What a perverted way to think.

See, how some people seek to manipulate your mind?

onthebeach,

"When will we know if the fool has managed to set a coal seam alight along the bank somewhere?"

The coal seam itself doesn't extend into the river.

_______________________________________________________________________________

rehctub,

"Aidan, how could fracking increase the risk?"

Firstly by causing or enlarging a crack in the rocks above the coal seam. Secondly by enabling the gas to flow more easily within the coal seam, meaning more of it can reach the point where it can escape.

Foxy,

That is the single most disgraceful and unwarranted slur against the CSIRO that they would throw all integrity out the window and shred their reputation and credibility to support the government.

This is what was reported in the Guardian, not exactly a coalition mouthpiece:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/24/river-on-fire-in-greens-mps-video-is-natural-not-fracking-says-csiro

Notably: "The CSIRO began studying methane seeps in 2012 in the Condamine river, which is near Chinchilla, about 300km west of Brisbane, after locals reported seeing bubbles."

So this is not a new phenomenon and predates most of the local CSG wells, giving final confirmation that this is a cheap and nasty stunt by an intellectual pinhead.

Final confirmation, Shadow? I suggest you reread that report you linked to – it makes it clear that the CSG industry in the area expanded in 2011, a few months before the problem was first noticed.

Aidan, being personally involved in the CSG industry myself, as a landholder with test wells, I can assure you some locals have said gas seeps have been occurring for many decades. Besides, would you rather extract the gas now, or allow it to one day find its own way up, perhaps with a bang.

Having said that, i'm not convinced that SCG extraction and this incident are linked either simply because of local history.

As for fracking, it could also be said that this practice is aiding in a controlled release of gas, which may be a good thing as it may prevent a sudden release at some point due to extreme pressure build up when mother nature decides it's time to go.

Here's a read,
http://www.aplng.com.au/pdf/factsheets/condamine_river_studies_fact_sheet.pdf

I first visited the area over 70 years ago with my father to stay on a property that one of his numerous cousins owned and I well remember being amazed when the cousin casually set fire to a small pool of water at a spring
He simply lit his pipe and flicked the match into the water, my reaction was all that he desired!!,

Aidan,

The choice is simple, do we believe an ex stone mason MP with a clear political agenda with 1days "research", or do we believe the main gov science body with geo technical scientists that have studied this for 2.5 yrs?

There is a coal seam about 70m directly under the area and river that generates methane, so Jeremy Buckingham would have us believe that fracking 5km away causes methane to travel 5km to rise up in the river? Or even 900m from an exploratory gas well?

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/gas-seeping-from-condamine-river-poses-no-threat-says-csiro/news-story/a5d03e36626644b87eeccaab9710e37b

Professor Damian Barrett, CSIRO’s research director of onshore gas and director of the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance, said research teams had been working on the gas seeps from the Condamine River for the past 2.5 yrs and had been looking at the source of the gas, variation in flows of gas and the geological nature of the area.

Prof Barrett said “we have a pretty good idea of what’s going on, but it is hard to be completely definitive as the gas is emanating from underground. The work has looked at the environmental impact in that area and it shows no impact whatsoever,”

He said the research showed the gas, which can be seen bubbling out of the River, is coming from coal. In that part of the landscape coal is 70-80 metres below the surface and it is intercepted by the Condamine Alluvium, so it is not unusual in sedimentary basins for coal to come through fissures and cracks to the surface,”.

The amount of methane in the area has increased in the past year and according to locals it has been increasing since people first noticed it. One of the things that is different to 12 months ago is the sediments in the river have moved due to the flow. Methane is coming straight out to the surface instead of being affected by sediments.”

So:
a) The methane emissions have nothing to do with the CSG extraction,
b) The environmental damage by the emissions in the area is zero,
c) Jeremy Buckingham is a pinhead.

I guess with all this Methane (More Global Warming than CO2) going into the Atmosphere from Coal under the ground, then the best idea would be to dig up all the Coal to stop it. eh.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You Sir should be aware that on issues which require radical
solutions that are likely to harm vested economic and
political interests, censorship exists today (as it has
existed in the past). In Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public
research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the
organisation's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on behalf
of the government. And Australia is one of the standout countries
in terms if human development status. It is not corrupt.
Its science is world class. None of this matters.

In 2006, the Australian Gernment's position was to cast doubt on
global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such
as the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position changed. The PM remained half-
hearted about a commitment to counter global warming.

When igrnorance and vested interests are confronted by
scientific facts - it's usually the case that vested interest
will win out.

Nothing new there.

Foxy,
While politicians such as Jeremy Buckingham are renouned for making statements that later prove to be false and largely they suffer very little as a result. However, scientists live and die by their reputations. Falsifying data or information is the stuff that destroys careers. Given that the CSIRO scientists have in the past had no problem contradicting the government of the day, and the terrible consequences of lying, the best that government pressure could achieve would be silence.

Accusing research scientists of making stuff up is akin to accusing a judge of dishonesty, a doctor of deliberately harming patients, or a child carer of abuse, and Foxy, I am surprised at you.

Jeremy Buckingham, thought he had a gotcha moment, but the cost of poor research is that he finds his proverbial pants around his ankles, and his accusations against the CSIRO are disgraceful.

Foxy: It is not corrupt. Its science is world class.

My Dad, before her retired worked for the CSRIO in the Burdekin. In the 10 years he worked there he never saw one Scientist complete his Project. Apparently they all Quit (Went on to another Funded Project) just before their present Project was complete. So the Project they worked on was never written up. Five years of research went into the Bin.

Any Project not researched by CSRIO isn't considered to be proper Science & is therefore condemned by the CSRIO as Rat Bag Science & Lobbied against when it comes for the allocation of the Research Dollar as they consider themselves to be above everyone else.

So much for CSRIO Integrity.

SM: Accusing research scientists of making stuff up is akin to accusing a judge of dishonesty, a doctor of deliberately harming patients, or a child carer of abuse, and Foxy, I am surprised at you.

Hmmmmm... We've had a bit of that lately. Haven't we. Just look at Callahan for a start. Possible ring leader of all the Crime Syndicates on the Gold Coast. Just going by the lenient Sentences she hands out or doesn't. Child Carers taking children of mothers for giving a misbehaving child a smack at a Supermarket & letting children stay with Drug addicted & Drunken Parents who kill them. Then there's the Doctors. Don't get me started, We'd be here until next year.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We all should be aware of vested
political and economic interests in issues under
discussion. This is especially true on issues
which require radical solutions that are likely
to harm vested economic and political interests.

Censorship exists, whether we like to admit it
or not.

BTW: CSIRO receives funding from mining companies.
Google this for yourself. This information
is available on the web.

Cheers.

Foxy: BTW: CSIRO receives funding from mining companies. Google this for yourself. This information is available on the web.

Once again, I am with you Foxy. The Funder is always right & get what they paid for, or the funding dries up very quickly.

None of which alters the fact that Buckingham was after some cheap publicity and deliberately used misinformation to further his own ends.
Methane gas has been bubbling to the surface for thousands of years as has natural burning liquids; Moses and the Burning Bush for instance.

It is one of the first rules of gas exploration to check out areas where there are tales about methane seeps and locals having a bit of fun by lighting the water.

Is Mise: None of which alters the fact that Buckingham was after some cheap publicity and deliberately used misinformation to further his own ends.

unfortunately the same can be said of every Politician that's ever been elected.

The Greens and their allies in the farming communities, many are National Party voters, are calling for a reasonable approach to CSG. Governments should stop the spread of coal seam gas extraction until the true impact of fugitive emissions has been independently assessed. For the vested interests and the CSG profit hounds, nothing less than total exploration will do, regardless of the environmental consequences.

Greens media release 26th April 2016.

http://jeremybuckingham.org/2016/04/26/csg-should-be-stopped-and-fugitive-emissions-understood-after-river-fire-video-goes-viral-and-global/

Did he have a fire permit?

http://ruralfire.qld.gov.au/Using_Fire_Outdoors/Obtaining_a_Permit_to_Light_Fire/Application-for-Permit-to-Light_Form.pdf

Is Mise, relying on Biblical clap-trap now to support your distorted view of the issue at hand. "Moses and the Burning Bush for instance."

Then the equally sycophantic Beach chimes in with "Did he (Jeremy Buckingham) have a fire permit?" If Jeremy Buckingham didn't, what is your verdict, Beach?

Firing squad!

The Courier Mail tells us that -

"It seems that science still can't pin down the
bubbling of the Condamine River. The paper
points out that after two years and a "substantial
sum" invested, coal seam gas company - "Origin," has
released a report that gives 4 theories - but it
still can't quite pin down the mystery."

It appears to be geologically complex.

The important thing is as the newspaper indicates -
is to put the monitoring in place.

Paul1405,

Lighting a fire in the open without a permit is a serious offence.

Do you have any idea how most of Queensland is at the moment (and usually)?

He has gone onto Youtube to boast about having no regard for the law. He showed contempt for the legislated involvement of the Fire Warden and adjoining landholders. He just went ahead, risking flora, fauna, fencing stock and other assets.

In other cases for instance young drivers who flout the law and post a video of themselves doing same, the police are directed by the Commissioner and with the blessing of the Police Minister to charge them with the offence. Then the matter goes to Court.

So, in all fairness what do you say should happen to this Greens idiot from NSW who crossed State borders to flout the law and has provided self-incriminating evidence of his offences? Can he produce a duly authorised fire permit for what he did?

The following link is worth a read.
The bubbling is intensifying in the condamine river -
and nobody has answers. It confirms that the
investigations will be ongoing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-14/condamine-river-mysterious-bubbling-intensifying-landholder-say/7139676

LOL, Henny Penny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiSf_K5PeFw

There is an election in the offing. The Greens are the greatest producers of gas, bar none. Hydrogen sulphide though (rotten egg gas).

Methane is the Natural Gas used in the home. Australia has a lot of it and that is good for the economy and the public.

Now, why is the Palaszczuk Labor Government apparently shielding from prosecution that attention-seeking Greens vandal from NSW who sets fires in the open in complete disregard for laws and good sense?

Jays,

"unfortunately the same can be said of every Politician that's ever been elected."

Not so for the Shooter and Fishers Party MsP nor for the great Liberals Ted Mack, who left Parliament early so that he disqualified himself for a pension and thus would not be a burden on the taxpayers and Edward StJohn who told the truth in Parliament and stuck to Liberal Party Principles and was dropped by the Liberals as a consequence; there have been others.

Paul,

The matter at hand is the credibility of Buckingham and the Greens in general.
Moses and the burning bush is quite pertinent as the Israelis worked out the approximate location of the Biblical incident and successfully drilled for oil, it is relevant as an example of the first principle of exploration for oil or gas and of the fact that these emissions occur naturally.

If there was a fire ban in the area at the time then Buckingham is apparently guilty of a crime and should face court.

Hey Foxy,
Part of that article you linked to spoke about the fact Origin was doing the monitoring themselves and that there needed to be be more transparency.

If Origin is doing the monitoring and publishing the reports themselves, then they might be just as likely to use that position to play down any responsibility - 'we don't know what's wrong'; if they already know that they have contributed to the problem.

Those reports might be covering up the truth rather than exposing it.
Whilst I'm not saying they are, one does need to be open minded about these things.

Is Mise, Moses and the burning bush, sorry to disappoint. On the balance of probability there was most likely no Moses and therefore no burning bush. Just stick to the more believable fair tails like 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears'. Besides if old Moses was fooling around with matches, and setting fire to bushes, Beach would have him shot! Did he have a combustible permit>
Now I know you are kidding. Claiming the Two Bobs, Tweedle Dum Bob, and his side kick, Tweedle Even Dummer Bod, from the Shooters and Hooters Party have some integrity, in the mold of a Ted Mack, a pair of reprobates if there ever was. They would sell out their grandmother to get their own way. Next!

The Greens believe that observing laws is optional where they are concerned.

In Queensland it is illegal to light a fire in the open without a permit. It is far worse if a fire ban is in place, obviously.

Some pertinent information from the Fire Permit Application, which was apparently never lodged by that irresponsible, headline-hunting Green,

<In addition to obtaining a Permit to Light Fire, I understand that I must comply with Local Government, State Government and Federal Legislation when constructing fire breaks and burning vegetation.

» I understand and accept it is my responsibility to have checked with my Local Government to ensure there is no local law restricting or prohibiting the lighting of fires prior to submitting this Application.

» I understand and accept that I must have obtained permission from my local government to light a fire, if required by local law, prior to submitting this Application.

» I verify that there are no toxic and/or hazardous materials that will be consumed by the fire.

» I understand and accept that if the fire escapes my firebreaks, I must report this fact immediately via 000 and take all reasonable steps to extinguish or control the fire until it is contained;

» I understand and accept that I am required to have a current Permit to Light Fire in my possession while this fire is still burning; and

» I understand and accept that the perimeter of the fire (s) is / are to be made safe and the fire patrolled until there is no longer any risk of the fire escaping.>

http://ruralfire.qld.gov.au/Using_Fire_Outdoors/Obtaining_a_Permit_to_Light_Fire/Application-for-Permit-to-Light_Form.pdf

He didn't have a fire unit attending for example. That was even if he was able to get approval in the first place.

There is nothing that says you can't light a fire in the middle of a flowing river.

Getting desperate, Paul?

A reference or two to back your allegations would be helpful.

The S&F MsP might have their faults but compared to the Greens they are beacons of integrity, and, unlike the Watermelons, they have never lied to Parliament.

Jayb, "There is nothing that says you can't light a fire in the middle of a flowing river"

Show me the specific exclusion for it. It is a fire in the open. That is all inclusive.

The condition that the Fire Warden must be asked anyhow is also relevant.

In the case of a fire ban the conditions are more onerous.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Thank You for reading my link and I'm
pleased that you understood the point
of it.

otb: It is a fire in the open. That is all inclusive.

Wouldn't stand up in Court. One good Lawyer would wreck that argument.

I'm at home & want to have a BBQ. I light the Barbie, Gas or wood fire. Now I a crim? The river has actually got "water" in it, if you failed to notice.

Jayb,

What about reading the Qld conditions in the available brochures (online) and the newspaper notices for the area of concern?

<Fires that do not require a Permit
Fires that are exempt from requiring a Permit to Light Fire are:
...
• Fires lit outdoors in a properly prepared fireplace for the
purpose of cooking (e.g. BBQ and camp fires). In this instance
it is the responsibility of the person lighting or maintaining
the fire to ensure adequate precautions are taken to prevent
the spread of fire.
...>
http://ruralfire.qld.gov.au/Using_Fire_Outdoors/Lighting_Fires_in_Queensland/Lighting-Fires-Queensland_Brochure.pdf

Be sure you are aware of the special conditions where fire bans are in operation. That is where notices in the media can be important.

Relevant to the Greens idiot from NSW, who apparently believes that compliance with laws is optional in his case,

<Breaches
Anyone found responsible for lighting fires without a Permit
where one was required can be prosecuted. Prosecution can
also occur if a person is found responsible for lighting a fire that
breaches local law or the Environmental Protection Act 1994>

What prevents him from being investigated and proceeded against as any other member of the public would be? He should be apologising, particularly because his actions could encourage copy cats just as foolish and irresponsible as himself.

onthebeach,
That document also shows there's an exemption for fires less than 2m in any direction. So unless a fire danger season had been declared, that fire was exempt.

LOL, since you are determined to find any way to excuse the fool, get your tape out, although sizing is possible through comparison with the people and boat,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-23/condamine-river-bubbling-methane-gas-set-alight-greens-mp/7352578

The flames are over 2 metres diameter and there was other bubbling in the vicinity that could have caught. Catch fire it likely did but there is no footage to confirm. Those and the grassy bank are site considerations. From the thoughtless idiot's own ejaculations the fire was instantly out of control and not what he expected at all. Then there is the location and application of other Acts that are referred to in the brochure and application.

How was it finally extinguished does anyone know?

For the police, how many copy cats already?

Foxy,

The CSIRO was set up as an independent organisation, that they do research on behalf of paying clients does not mean that they beholden to these clients to the point that they are prepared to lie for them.

This level of conspiratorial thinking would claim that my doctor is beholden to me because I pay for his services.

The reality is that Jeremy Buckingham pulled a cheap political stunt with claims that have no basis in reality, and is now exposed as the pinhead that he really is.

SM: The CSIRO was set up as an independent organisation, that they do research on behalf of paying clients does not mean that they beholden to these clients to the point that they are prepared to lie for them.

Arhhhhh...., but, if they want another grant, their findings are along the lines of what the Independent Organization wants. ;-)

Paul,

Moses is an historical person and his story is covered in some detail in the Bible.

Is Mise: Moses is an historical person and his story is covered in some detail in the Bible.

To give his full name & Title "Ramose." "God of the Waters"

and, it would appear, of flammable liquids as well.

Jeremy Buckingham, NSW Greens MP, has set fire to methane gas bubbling out of the Condamine River in Queensland and has a video of the event on Facebook.

It appears Jeremy Buckingham maybe Moses in disguise. He'll just have to be careful with the burning Bush though.

Moses he ain't; Moses led the people, Buckingham misleads them.

Jayb,

Heh, heh, it was Jeremy's own bush that was threatened, a fact betrayed by his girly screams. He very nearly ended up overboard, Greens Flambé.

Greens should never be allowed anywhere near matches, let alone one of those tactical automatic lighters. Ye Gods, where's that foolish Watermelon, Shoebridge and his bans against everything,

#ban lighters
#lighter control

Beach, when you set fire to crosses in peoples front yards, do you do it with or without a permit? Just asking.

p1405: when you set fire to crosses in peoples front yards,

Actually it's the people who get cross when you light a fire in their front yard. Run out of retort p?

Paul,

When you set fire to illegal immigrants, do you do it with or without a permit? Just asking.