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.

isis / iraq / iran
at what juncture does my enemy's enemy become my friend?
quite shortly i'ld guess, as iran joins forces with baghdad and wades into the fray against isis

so far so good one thinks; bit of a trade off, but puts lots more oil back into the free market and brings iran (legally) back into the marketplace
however, this means that the sunnis are even more marginalised, and for whatever obscure reason, there is deep-seated and historic animosity between them and the shi'ites, so what happens longer term?

btw, isis has even been disowned by al qaeda as being too violent and uninterested in a "greater islam" but merely in gaining territory or similar - and supported heavily be whom, one may ask

No idea c.

But the one thing you can bank on, is that we will back the losing horse.

Dave and co are not up to the game.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/14/taxpayers-should-not-fund-faith-schools?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position1

Taxpayers' cash should not be used to fund faith schools, say voters

Labour wants talks on teaching of religion as poll shows 58% of the public urge abolition or axing of state funds

Labour is calling for cross-party talks on how religious education is conducted and monitored in the state sector as a special poll for the Observer shows widespread concerns about the use of taxpayers' money to fund faith schools in a multicultural Britain.

The survey by Opinium shows that 58% of voters now believe faith schools, which can give priority to applications from pupils of their faith and are free to teach only about their own religion, should not be funded by the state or should be abolished.

Of those with concerns, 70% said the taxpayer should not be funding the promotion of religion in schools, 60% said such schools promoted division and segregation, and 41% said they were contrary to the promotion of a multicultural society. Fewer than one in three (30%) said they had no objections to faith schools being funded by the state.

David Cameron’s lofty promises on Europe don’t hold water

The Prime Minister's battle over Jean-Claude Juncker and EU reform is all for show



David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutt afloat in Sweden Photo: ANDERS WIKLUND/EPA



By Christopher Booker

5:45PM BST 14 Jun 2014


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10899890/David-Camerons-lofty-promises-on-Europe-dont-hold-water.html


We all saw the picture of David Cameron and Angela Merkel being rowed across a Swedish lake, supposedly so that Mr Cameron could persuade Mrs Merkel not to allow the dim “arch-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker” to become the European Commission’s new president. What we were not told was that these photo-opportunities are an old Swedish tradition. A similar picture showed the then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev rowing across the same lake in 1964. The difference was that, whereas today’s leaders had to be seen wearing lifejackets, 50 years ago the three men in a boat just wore suits. It would have been a good illustration for my piece last week on how the world has changed since D-Day, suggesting that, where our leaders were once ''Men from Mars”, today we have only “Men from Venus”.


“Europe” is nothing if not theatre. Mr Cameron wants to impress upon everyone, particularly in the wake of the Euro elections, that he intends to see the EU “reformed”, reducing its powers (hence his bid to block Juncker as the European Parliament’s choice for that top job). He thereby hopes that he can mop up the Ukip vote and win next year’s general election by promising that he will negotiate a “new relationship” between Britain and the EU, then lead the “Yes” campaign in the 2017 In/Out referendum.


Of course, this is all just theatre. Mr Cameron knows that if he could get anything more than a few cosmetic concessions from the EU, it would require a new treaty, which any one of the 27 other countries could veto. He knows that even if Mr Juncker dropped out, he would only be replaced by some other “arch-federalist”. Furthermore, Cameron knows that, whatever Mrs Merkel may say about Juncker in public, she doesn’t want him either, any more than she likes the attempt by MEPs to claim that they, rather than the European Council, can propose a new commission president, flatly in breach of treaty rules.


Behind the theatre, the reality of what is going on was better reflected in the minutes of the recent “2,087th” meeting of the outgoing commission. First they expressed satisfaction that, despite all those votes for “anti-European parties”, the recent Euro elections produced an overwhelming majority for mainstream parties favouring more integration. Then, in referring to a briefing for the new commission president, it was just the same old familiar story: the EU’s priorities must be to promote “growth and jobs” (at which they have been so successful in the eurozone); more action on climate change; a common energy policy; more EU powers over “justice and home affairs”; and an extension of the EU’s External Action Service (which has been so brilliantly effective in sorting out the Ukraine and the Middle East).


Nothing has changed. There is no way Mr Cameron is going to get his “reformed EU”, or his treaty. Like so much else, it is all theatre – or, as we used to say, just make-believe, smoke and mirrors.

You may remember my earlier post about my neighbours a few doors away, Paul and Sandra Dunham, who were fighting extradition to the USA on malicious and trumped up charges from Eric, the son of the founder of the US company, PACE, who Paul went to work for some years ago. Eric wasn't up to much and certainly not able to run things and so got chucked out by his father, who then asked Paul Dunham to run the company. Then the father died, Eric inherited, came back into the company, making Paul's position untenable. Paul had to leave.

Eric is now running things and the company is very much in decline. He is blaming Paul Dunham and taking his revenge.

Despite a valiant fight by our MP, the Dunhams lost their fight with the courts. The night before they were to be taken out of their home to the USA they both made an attempt at suicide. The police broke into their home, thereby saving their lives. They did get extradited and were taken to the USA about 10 days later. Here's what's happened to them so far:

The British grandparents on US fraud charges, degraded and stuck in a 'foul-smelling human oven'

More at: The nightmare of an extradited British couple locked up with drug dealers and hardened criminals could last another year

By the way, even if you have no interest in the Dunhams, you might like to read what it is like in America, the 'Land of the Free', and where slapped in jail, without being allowed to take any money, clothes, a toothbrush or whatever and you are Guilty until you prove your innocence.

Paul dunham now works in the prison library. His wages are $27 per month.

A telephone call costs him $4 per minute. That's after the prison has charged him $9 to connect the call.

It was a perfectly legal extradition in a case investigated by police, grand jury and FBI. It is quite likely that they are guilty. They tried to get out of it by claiming stress and depression but now they can have their day in court.

What utter fucking rubbish, Haystack! You miss the whole point!

The way they are being treated is utterly ridiculous. It is utterly irrelevant as to whether 'they are quite likely to be Guilty', as you say, or even Innocent.

How is it right for our government to allow British citizens to be treated like this and locked up, banned from bringing even clothes and toothbrushes with them; let alone be utterly banned, prevented from bringing with them any borrowed money from friends or relatives to help them finance a defence.

It could be 18 months at least before they even get, what you call, their "day in court".

If it were you, how the fuck would you like to fund the management of your affairs in another country whilst you are in prison on your $29 per month prison pay, when the phone calls cost you $9 to get connected and then $4 per minute.

And they tried to get out of spending this time in a USA prison before the case by attempting suicide not by claiming stress and depression.

The stress and depression was brought on in the knowledge that they will be so powerfully forced and absolutely made to 'cop a plea'. In the USA guilt or innocence is irrelevant with these types of 'white collar crimes'. 99.9% of defendants end up doing exactly that.

And just compare this shitty prolonged out treatment, doled out to a British couple, by our 'allies' with the sort of stuff our government is doling out to, well, let's say, your average 'umarried, cat owning, fundamental terrorist'.

Your all Heart Haystack , and how long will they wait in prison before getting their day in court. If British citizens have to go to a USA prison and stand trail they should be treated the same as Amercian citizens are treated over here.

The alternative is to ignore the extradition which we can't do. The case has been fully investigated and they have to answer the case. It is no use claiming to be depressed and faking suicide, all of which makes them look more guilty.

I have no sympathy for them. They should have gone back straight away to face the charges.

You right wing bods make me laugh, if your not winging about one thing then it's another, if your not happy with the administrations that continually cosy up to the yanks then don't persistently vote for them.. which you do!

Had they gone back voluntarily, they could have taken toithbrushes etc. They chose to drag it all out over an extended period until they had to be arrested. They have even had access to our court and appeals. Now they have to face justice. I don't believe for a minute the nonsense about not being able to use borrowed money to fund a defence. Their son appears to be a lawyer and can arrange their defence. It looks increasingly like a couple trying to avoid justice and are probably guilty. If they are guilty then they have to face justice in the country that they committed the crime. It doesn't sound that bad if he is working in the prison library and the pay is unimportant. Why pay him at all?

Haystack

Just first of all remove from your thinking on this, anything to do with Guilt or Innocence.

Why is it I am bothered about their treatment?
Why is it that my wife is bothered about it it too?
Why has our MP, Andrea Leadsom, spent such a lot of her time trying to not just prevent their extradition but prevent their extradition in this way?
Why are all our neighbours up in arms about it?
Why is the local rag up in arms about it?

As I say, ignore Innocence and also ignore Guilt:

It seems to me, that you seem to agree with slapping a man and his wife in jail, separated and not allowed to communicate with each other, without any means to fund a defence and without a change of clothes or even a toothbrush keeping them locked up this way - all where the statistical outcome shows that the very best thing, in fact the only thing, they can do, to statistically guarantee bettering their circumstances, is to 'cop a plea'?

This very clever lawyer guy, also called 'Dunham'.

Could you kindly provide me some kind of proof that:

He is their son?

If you can do that, then I might see better where you could possibly be coming from and I might be tempted to warm to your view points a bit more.

Here are a few web sites:

http://www.lawandlegal.co.uk/solicitors/dunham-solicitors-milton-keynes-buckinghamshire/

http://www.dglsolicitors.co.uk/

http://www.consumeruk.co.uk/about.asp

http://www.dunhamlaw.co.uk/


"Solicitor Dean Dunham and famous client Freddie Starr"


"Famous Lawyer to the Stars, Dean Dunham"

Arranging the situation so that "copping a plea" is the only way out must do wonders for their conviction stats.


However alien the US system sounds to us, it done the trick where Hamza the hook was concerned, something our own system couldn't seem to do.

The lawyer business is a red herring. They should have been returned to the US to stand trial. If they can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed.

Stan

You don't half talk a load of bollocks , wounder were you picked that habit up from ?

There is plenty of evidence that Dean Dunham is the son of the Dunham couple. He looks like Paul Dunham, he has the same number of children as their son - 5 (an uncommon number). He owns businesses in Northampton and there are references across the internet to him being their son.

The only bollocks on here Aldgit is between your ears.