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.

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!

Fred, its a good job it is. The liberals have not a clue in my eyes. Boris leader you are joking. Mind you even the Libs have more idea than the Labs.

The proportion would seem higher bearing in mind the number of votes that Labour get.

lol

It is a pretty much accepted reality that religion flourishes in uneducated groups. You only have to witness the Indian sub continent, Africa, South America, Arabia. There are notable exceptions of wealthy and educated people including the normally sceptical scientists. However religion and poverty go hand in hand. It is interesting that support of the Labour party has similar demographics to religion. And similarly as people are educated the majority of them see the Labour party for what it is. If you had to describe the Labour party you might use the term fascist in the original use of the term. It involves state control and social engineering. Just look at the Blair years when there was an average of one new law per day.

So is Fred uneducated, lost the plot or what. :-))

Do I have to choose?

No he's just a Twaxt DC