Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

what is the point of T MAYS job when she has no power .

put him on a plane today .

If Abu Qutada is so dangerous (rather than being offensive), I cannot see why he cannot be tried, under current law, in this country.

If found guilty, then sentenced and imprisoned, if necessary.

This would be a lot better and cheaper than the flapping about and grandstanding of Teresa and cohorts.
-----------


Hays,

Whatever, you wish to call the bedroom tax, it will be seen by many of the public as a TAX.

The majority of the effect should be apparent befor the next election,

-------------------

One definition of a tax is : “A compulsory contribution to state revenue,” the above will be that via. the local purse.

fred i would just put him on a one way flight he is a terrorist .
as for the bedroom tax it is a disgrace and i am notpoor very well off
it stinks and this gov will be kicked out in 2 years they are just LIARS
AND THIS IS BEING SAID BY A RIGHT WING TORY MYSELF
now UKIP

the judges should be tried for treason and have i the right
to take them to court for putting my family under threat .

He's not actually out on bail at the moment Tanker, that was actually rescinded as he had broken some of his previous bail conditions. So your family is not technically under threat at the moment while we are still paying for him to be locked up.

P22544

It depends whether you wish to see in the long term the development of a humane "lawful world", with what many would see decent standards of humanity.

Passive support by governments when it suits them and disregard of international law, gives them only a short term reprieve of their real problems, but does satisfy the rabble.

If the Law, rules, or regulations are considered to be wrong, modify them. You can't expect the law to protect you, if you don't respect it yourself.

Disregarding the "law" may end with bigger problems.

Also, shouting one's mouths off, before negotiating for "changes", makes gaining the changes one wish more difficult to obtain. (This seems to be the present methods practised by parts of the coalition government when they go to Brussels.)

So yet again a terrorist who has been deemed to be a threat to this country, is allowed to remain here at our expence.
Terrisa May and the rest of this pathetically weak government (the other lot being no better) must be the laughing stock of the world.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[42] in 1948, partly in response to the barbarism of World War II. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

So this non-binding act was created to prevent henios acts and as we know is now mainly used in the UK to protect evil barstewards from being thrown out of the country as they have a right to family life.
Bearing in mind that many of these people have several kids by several different women and probably never have anything to do with most of them.

Its about time we ignored the Human Rights act, putting in its place a UK bill of rights that way we could get on with throwing these scumbags out without redress to a court that is so removed from the real world, its well past its sell by date.

Apologise re spelling, spell checker not working!

If an individual is a proven threat to the security of the UK I think I would prefer him to be locked up in a prison cell in this country.

At least I may know where the individual was and what he/she was doing.

--------------

I would like to be able to ignore the human rights with anybody who disagrees with me.

Watch out DCH.

We are legally bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 passed in the UK and the European Convention on Human Rights. The UN UDHR is not the problem. The government cannot overrule the judiciary.

I think I'm right in saying that we are also protecting Assange from being deported. How much is that costing the British tax payer? We seem to be spending loads of money in this country on foreign aid and producing leaflets in various languages so that all the immigrants who cannot speak our language can understand how to milk our system etc.etc. I'm surprised that we don't have our road signs in about twenty different languages by now. I'm beginning to sound like a member of the UKIP party. I've been a Tory all my life, but I must admit they have lost the plot - although the alternative i.e. Ed and Balls are even less appetising.

Hi Haystack,

I agree that it was the Court of Appeal that made todays decision, but they are guided by the Human Rights Act, if there was a UK Bill of Rights, they would, if we withdrew from the said Human Rights Act be bound by the UK Bill of Rights instead.
Several countries in the past, and I don't mean tin pot dictitorial countries, but countries in the EU have ignored the Human Rights Act with very little redress.

From the 1998 Human Rights Act.

It makes it unlawful for a public authority, like a government department, local authority or the police, to breach the Convention rights, unless an Act of
Parliament meant it couldn’t have acted differently.

So the UK could leave the Human Rights Act by passing an act of Parliament, such as say a UK Bill of Rights.

If it we down to me, I would simply shoot him!

Dood,

I thought the tories were tomorrow's UKIP!

8-)

Assange is probably not costing the UK anything than the policing by the police outside the Ecuador Embassy, said to be approximately £3 million a year.

=======

If the government of the UK gave him a freedom of passage to Ecuador I am sure he would be happy to leave this country and for political advantage Ecuador would be prepared to accept him.

Personally, his revelations I thought were legitimate (Whistle blowing) and he was exposing mainly American crimes.

The sex charges made seemed trumped up, but not certain about that.

The evidence for the charges could be examined in a court in this country and if seemed sound enough for a prosecution Assange could be returned to Sweden, as long guaranteed to try him in Sweden and not automatically extradite him to the states.


Without seeing more of the evidence of his said criminal actions there is a distinct corrupt smell about his case. May be wrong.

Perhaps, all the more reason for European Court of Human Rights and attempts to prevent such vigilante behaviour as "if it we down to me, I would simply shoot him!"..

I wonder why?

Perhaps, they expect downgrading of ratings.

Britain, the world and the end of the free lunch?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21956087


"Year after year, as a country we have somehow made a lot more on our investments abroad than the rest of the world has earned on its investments in the UK, even though - in cash terms - foreigners have more invested in us than we have invested in them.

But not last year. More than any other factor, it is the collapse in our foreign investment earnings in 2012 that explains why today's balance of payments figures show Britain's current account deficit last year was an eye-popping £58bn, up from £20bn in 2011.

In case you were wondering, £58bn is a big number. It means the gap between what we earned in the global economy last year, and what we spent, was 3.7% of GDP. That's the highest since 1989 and only the fourth time since 1948 that our current account deficit has been greater than 3% of GDP.

Export drop
It's not news that the economy is failing to re-balance. I've mentioned it often enough in the past, along with the likely rise in the current account deficit last year.

But, forecasts are one thing. It is still shocking to see the deterioration in black and white in today's release. Shocking, and rather puzzling."

I thought you would blame DC for the above. You must be feeling better. :-))

The situation would have been the same no matter which government was in power, except it would have been worse under Labour.

Fred won't agree.lol

Dreams.

If you haven't noticed for the last two and a half years it has been a tory dominated coalition.

Who knows who is leading it, but the economic policies are down to incompetent leadership and policies.

I suggest that even Boris would be a better leader than the present incumbent who is a disaster.

i'm afraid the European Court of Human Rights and its attaching act has fallen into disrepute ...... the act is now disproportionately weighted towards the criminal, just as was the case in UK as to one's right to defend one's home and assets from a burglar

as has been said before, if your can't do the time, don't do the crime ...... imo, and probably that of nearly all right (sorry, sensible) thinking individuals, people who come to this country should effectively be here on licence .... that is to say, if you commit a serious crime (obviously needs defining in some way) then you lose your rights in this country, and get sent back whence you came - the regime isn't "nice" there? - well tough!