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.

.

Haystack,

I agree that having a referendum now is pointless for the reason you have given. But if Cameron allows any further erosion of our laws into EU hands, then he will have broken an election pledge that would cost him dearly. Now if he held a referendum on getting out, that would be a different matter.
As to someone posting about Edward Heath getting us into this mess, by signing up to the what was then called the common market, what utter nonsense. I was never a fan of Heath, in fact I could not stand the man, but to blame him for joining what is a completely different animal than the EU is ridiculous. I like many voted in favor of the common market, because it was just that. A market place with the main intention of reducing trade barriers. It also did not restrict us from trading with the rest of the world, which of course we still can, but the EU actually makes such trading far more difficult than it needs be,. All for its own agenda of course.

Greek.

"All for its own agenda of course. "

But what agenda are the "Little Englanders" shouting about?

Let Fred remind us of what public school Blair went to.

AID

DYOH.

But as a help try something beginning with F.

Greek,

The one thing which I admired Heath for, was that he was an ardent Europhile. As was Churchill.

They did have foresight.

As was Churchill ? ....... Churchill never trusted the French

Fred

And a few other Labour MPs, plus Nick Clegg.

Diane Abbot sent her son to City of London Public School near St Pauls.

Tony Benn went to Westminster

15 per cent of Labour MPs went to private schools. This compares to just seven per cent of people in the country at large.

I like what Churhill said about De Gaulle: -

" He was the perfect gentleman - He never upset anyone by accident"

Let's see how fred will twist his reply or ignore it by changing the subject by replying with another question.

Why not.

What is wrong with those schools?


Perhaps, it is just the problems with some of the products they turn out.

Some schools just seem to have too many Friday afternoons.

Shouldn't you boys be in bed by now, or have you been given Cameron's latest brilliant ideas for escaping responsibility.

Perhaps your preps are to cost out the implementation of the latest reforms.

Risible!

I can see why he is going to China. I hope they keep him there.

By the way, is he going to Kowtow all the way to the restaurant.

David Noakes sounds like a diligent intelligent researcher and I am grateful to him for drawing to our attention the machinations of the Evil Empire.

"Some schools just seem to have too many Friday afternoons."

What is he talking about ?



"he was an ardent Europhile. As was Churchill."

History was not Fred's best subject at school

.

I know that , but why would anybody other then Fred apply it to school's ?

.

"Fred is being economical with his language"

Blimey. There's a first!

I know and expect many people who read this will disagree.

The UK at least on the surface have stated that they are totally against torture.
Whilst some tortures should not be accepted, I feel that under certain circumstances some tortures (I will not be mealy mouthed and call it methods) should be both allowed and used.
Water boarding, deprivation of light/dark and sleep, white noise and certain drugs should be used.
As long as there is evidence that the subjects of these interrogation methods are terrorists and mean harm then I would condone them.
We are not dealing with Boy Scouts here, we are dealing with people who want to commit as much harm, death and distress to as many people as possible. If some degree of torture will save lives, then so be it. Terrorists loose many of their human rights by there actions or intended actions.

I remember a film of years ago (Can't remember the name of the film).
A family were on an aircraft when it was found that a terrorist who was also on board, had secreted a bomb that was fitted with a timer. The usual followed with a search of the aircraft. This search failed to find the bomb. A passenger, I think he was a member of the armed forces, who as traveling with his wife and daughter, persuaded the captain that he should be allowed to 'Question' the terrorist. He obviously would not talk. This soldier then produced a pocket knife (obviously well before all the new security issues) and threatened to push it into the terrorists eye. As he still refused to talk, the soldier pushed the knife into the terrorists eyeball. When the same threat was made to do the same to the other eye, the terrorists became fully co-operative. the bomb was found, defused and several hundred lives were saved.
Was the actions of the soldier justified, Not in law, but morally, YES.
If you had been that soldier traveling with your family, what would you have done.

We expect the security forces to protect us and play hell when things go wrong, and yet we expect them to interrogate terrorists with kid gloves, putting them under very low levels of stress.
Talk to most people and privately they would condone certain tortures, but publicly they are worried about being condemned as being evil.
Just wait until the next mass murder in either the UK or the USA. There will be the usual screams of 'What went wrong', 'why didn't the security services act on information they knew about'.

Two wrongs obviously don't make a right, but it may save lives.

Terrorists have far too many human rights, and the Human Rights Act must be an even more valuable weapon to them, than both the bullet and bomb.

No doubt someone will post that, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'. Well to me that won't wash. If someone wants to kill me or my family they are terrorist, full stop.

Torture for tortures sake is wrong, but if it saves lives, surely sometimes it must be justified.

I am also not advocating any actions directed at any particular, race or creed. A terrorist of any nationality is a terrorist.

I hope this post is not looked at as being against the rules of the bulletin boards, as only this morning George Bush publicly defended some tortures. No doubt if the subject was discussed openly the results would surprise many people.

.

He spend's most of his time being economical with the truth and the only picture he is drawing is of his surreal and twisted view of other people's posted view's , and if that is your Idea of fun then you must have a very warped sense of humour .