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.

Intermediate EU proposals (end of 2014):



EU proposals for 2015:



Typical of the products to be offered out by current average of 755 weekly business proposals to Dragons Den:

Barbados does not have an extradition treaty with the UK.

This means that the UK police cannot be sent to arrest someone in Barbados and therefore be made to answer for charges relating to that arrrest back in a court in the UK.

Hmmm? Know anyone who lives in Barbados?

Are you useless Tory Tossers senile, brain dead or just plain bone idol?

1st pic:

1. and 2. not needed, food remember is for eating so eat it.. and don't throw it away.

3. Blue box is useful (see 5,6 & 7).

4. Not needed (but a useful bag for storing some of your consumer durables), put cardboard in your compost bin.

5. 6. and 7. Are bags, and bags are for putting things in.. so put things in them and store the bags in the box (3) until they need putting out... Now how difficult is that?

8. & 9. Are useful wheely bins.. even you lot must know what for.

And as for the miserable Butlers.. stop hanging around get inside and do some bloody house work for a change, I bet it's an absolute tip in there.

Lot's

How do you justify this?




Sir Cliff Richard investigation: police defend televised raid on singer's home

MPs demand answers from South Yorkshire Police after force admitted it had worked with the BBC before broadcaster showed live helicopter footage of officers arriving at Sir Cliff Richard's home in Berkshire



Television footage of detectives entering the home of singer Sir Cliff Richard



Gordon Rayner
By Gordon Rayner, Nicola Harley and Edward Malnick

10:00PM BST 15 Aug 2014



Police investigating an allegation of child abuse against Sir Cliff Richard defended their handling of the case on Friday as new potential witnesses came forward with information.


South Yorkshire Police admitted it had “worked with” the BBC, which broadcast live helicopter footage of detectives arriving at the singer’s home on Thursday with a search warrant.


MPs said the force had “questions to answer” over its decision to confirm a tip-off the BBC had received independently about the raid, which encouraged the broadcaster to send news crews to the flat in Berkshire.


South Yorkshire Police released a statement suggesting its actions had been vindicated by the fact that “since the search took place a number of people have contacted police to provide information”, adding: “The media played a part in that, for which we are grateful.”


The force said it was “too early to say” whether any of the callers were claiming to be victims of abuse, or whether their information related to an existing allegation that Sir Cliff molested a young boy at a Christian rally in 1985.


Sir Cliff, 73, believes the high-profile raid was no more than a “fishing expedition” designed to generate publicity and encourage people to “come out of the woodwork”.


More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11038267/Sir-Cliff-Richard-investigation-police-defend-televised-raid-on-singers-home.html

You can't justify it MaxK, it's truly disgraceful. The people who control the BBC lost integrity long ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alex-salmond-described-as-arrogant-ambitious-and-dishonest-by-scottish-women-9671833.html

Wouldnt like to think someone had entered my homes without my permission.

They must have some dammed good evidence to do this or Cliff could sue them for millions surely????

Those in the know can you sue the police???? Could you sue the BBC????

Not my area law, rather ignorant on the subject. Dont mind admitting it.

He did say that he was happy to cooperate with the police, so he may have given permission. However, they could have entered anyway if they had a warrant. I would think a warrant would be easily obtained with sufficient evidence. My father was a magistrate and the police would knock on our door sometimes at 3 o'clock in the morning to get a warrant signed. For drug warrants all police attending the search have to be listed. He would sometimes refuse to sign warrants with too many police for a simple drug bust.

Interesting Hays, so in effect we are saying here THEY have got some very good concrete evidence in their opinion.

Credible accusations are sufficient. Unlikely to be actual evidence after all these years unless there are witnesses.

Indeed, indeed.

More accusers seem to be coming forward now.

When you see a band wagon, be sure to jump on.

Geoffrey Robertson


Saturday 16 August 2014


The way the police have treated Cliff Richard is completely unacceptable



Due process has been subverted in a case that raises urgent questions on civil liberties




People believe that where there’s smoke there’s fire, but sometimes there is just a smoke machine.


By treating Cliff Richard as though he were a bank robber or a mass murderer, the police from Thames Valley and South Yorkshire, aided and abetted by the BBC and a Sheffield lay justice, have blasted his reputation around the world without giving him the first and most basic right to refute the allegation.

Last year, apparently, a complaint was made to police that the singer had indecently assaulted a youth in Sheffield a quarter of a century ago. The police had a duty to investigate, seek any corroborating evidence, and then – and only if they had reasonable grounds to suspect him of committing an offence – to give him the opportunity to refute those suspicions before a decision to charge is made.


But here, police subverted due process by waiting until Richard had left for vacation, and then orchestrating massive publicity for the raid on his house, before making any request for interview and before any question could arise of arresting or charging him.

Police initially denied “leaking” the raid, but South Yorkshire Police finally confirmed yesterday afternoon that they had been “working with a media outlet” – presumably the BBC – about the investigation. They also claimed “a number of people” had come forward with more information after seeing coverage of the operation – which leads one to suspect that this was the improper purpose behind leaking the operation in the first place. This alone calls for an independent inquiry.



The BBC and others were present when the five police cars arrived at Richard’s home, and helicopters were already clattering overhead. Police codes require that “searches must be conducted with due consideration for the property and privacy of the occupier and with no more disturbance than necessary” – here, the media were tipped off well ahead of time, and a smug officer read to the cameras a prepared press statement while the search was going on.



Long but interesting article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-way-the-police-have-treated-cliff-richard-is-completely-unacceptable-9672367.html

Definitely not good how the police and the BBC have acted with this investigation and as, 'Sir Cliff Richard', he does surely deserve better.

He has lots of support and if his only sex crime is sex with a 15 yr old boy, then he will earn his forgiveness for it easily I would think.

if his only sex crime is sex with a 15 yr old boy, then he will earn his forgiveness for it easily I would think.

So do you think having sex with a underage boy by a man is a trival crime ?

A great white shark is getting ready to bite dave's arse...



Double poll boost for Boris Johnson's attempts to return to Parliament

More than half of voters in Uxbridge and South Ruislip would vote for Boris Johnson if he chose to stand there in May’s general election, while more than half of voters think the Tories have a better chance of winning in May with Mr Johnson as an MP





By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent

1:45PM BST 16 Aug 2014




Boris Johnson would almost certainly be elected as an MP if he is adopted by Tories in a prime London constituency, according to a poll.


More than half of voters in Uxbridge and South Ruislip would vote for the Mayor of London if he chose to stand there in May’s general election, according to survey by Lord Ashcroft.


The news came as a second survey by Ipsos Mori for The Sunday Telegraph found that more than half of voters think the Tories have a better chance of winning the general election with Mr Johnson as an MP.


Lord Ashcroft's survey was conducted in Uxbridge and South Ruislip after the London Mayor confirmed his desire to return to Parliament showed he could significantly boost Tory support.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11038623/Double-poll-boost-for-Boris-Johnsons-attempts-to-return-to-Parliament.html

aldwickk 16 Aug 2014 16:30 - 45057 of 45058

Q. So do you think having sex with a underage boy by a man is a trivial crime ?

A. My first reaction to your question is that it somehow seemingly communicates, that the asker, namely yourself, has most probably got an obtuse, intransigent narrow minded attitude to these topics. You also seemingly communicate to me, that you most likely also have a 'holier than thou' approach to life too.

You do not define what you mean by the word, "sex" for a start.

I believe that some certain young kids are extremely 'street wise' and know what to do to earn quite a bit of money. At quite a young age some of them have even determined what their own morality is to be for the rest of their life. And also they some of them are sure of their sexuality preferences.

1. Oral sex? Given?
2. Oral Sex? Taken?
3. Mutual masturbation?
4. Masturbation given?
5. Masturbation taken?
6. Any of the above forcibly?
7. Any of the above for money or a gift?
8. Anal sex? Given?
9. Anal sex? Taken?
10. If anal and taken? Was it aggressive rape or consensual?
11. If taken? Was it consensually taken?
etc, etc, etc. Need I go on?

I am well aware, that it is against the law to have sex of any kind with a person under the age of consent.

Funnily enough, I belong to that peculiar group of people who believe that morality, justice and the law should be very closely related to each other. Accordingly, I think there are lots of things to be taken into consideration when sentencing, even when the perpetrator of a crime is technically guilty.

And the victim isn't always completely blameless, even if the victim was under age at the time. And there are 'degrees of being under age' too.

However, with obviously narrow minded people like you, I'll keep most of my opinions to myself.