Brilliant stuff from David Cameron today

[pastafarian]

Everything okay chap? Eating properly?

fine thanks,eating lovely M & S food too

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

View attachment 59113Just keep on cutting Gideon...

Happy, fair minded Conservatives at the conference this week.

View attachment 59112

Because you couldnt accuse any political party of doing the same... oh no.

 

[Southern Scouse]

I wouldn't be so sure - the SNP will take at least 20 seats off them in Scotland. That's a lot of ground to make up with a leader that just doesn't seem to connect with the people he needs to connect with.

A lot depends on how tactical the UKIP/Tory vote is. IMHO.

I agree, I just think, hopefully, that UKIP will do enough damage to force through a Labour majority.

 

[easynow]

Bloody phone lol

 

[pastafarian]

I wasn't totally correct

well spotted

but this is sort of what I was thinking about.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person.htm

how on earth is this article linked to how Cameron
will increase the rights of corporations after an overhall of The Human Rights Act

Quick tip though, do a bit of googling before typing aggressive rhetoric, that way people are more likely to listen to you on the rare occasion you get something correct.

aggressive rhetoric tips coming from Nibble.......whatever next....Pot Kettle Black

 

[Nibble]

well spotted



how on earth is this article linked to how Cameron
will increase the rights of corporations after an overhall of The Human Rights Act



aggressive rhetoric tips coming from Nibble.......whatever next....Pot Kettle Black

You also need to learn to accept defeat with grace and poise. You are making an argument from nothing, I stated nothing as solid fact and pointed out it's what I was lead to believe but was not 100% certain and not 100% accurate. There is nothing to argue about but I get the impression that is your sole aim on here.

 

[pastafarian]

I stated nothing as solid fact and pointed out it's what I was lead to believe but was not 100% certain and not 100% accurate.

ok nibble ill go with that

 

[spring hall convert]

[MENTION=28206]Rod Marsh[/MENTION] : I'm deeply hurt at all your negative marking. Are you going to come out and play?

 

[chucky1973]

Why if you acknowledge it's all crap anyway? Vote for something you believe in, sod the limitations of the electorial system, if everyone did the same things would change. At the very least you could hold your head high knowing that you haven't contributed to this left vs right mirage.

That last part was said in jest.

 

[spring hall convert]

That last part was said in jest.

Apologies, I have sense of humour failure once I set foot in any politcal thread.

 

[Mannie]

As yet I'm not decided but I must apologise for considering what I could do for my family with the extra money rather than have it wasted by central / local government.

Absolutely correct

 

[Nibble]

If Cameron and his chums remain in power I feel for anyone not earning a good salary over the next 5 years. If I hadn't just started a new business I would seriously consider leaving the country if they get re-elected. I still might.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Absolutely correct

Its far from absolutely correct though. Its naive nonsense.

For starters, the tax breaks would only come in IF the defecit is cleared, which doesn't look like happening any time within the next term anyway.

Beyond that, even if it DID happen, where do you think the money will come from to pay for the bribes? "Here's £1000 extra in your take home pay. Enjoy spending it on your family. Oh, by the way, VAT has gone up to 25% and we've stopped your famiy tax credits"

Its all absolute bollocks.

 

[Seagull58]

And this is how civilisation should be. Legal aid is there, *has* to be there, for those who cannot afford to seek justice. Without it the justice system becomes nothing more than another tool for the rich. Can it be abused? Yes, up to a point. But given that we have around 65 million people in the UK and you're dredging up a case more than a decade old to point out that the system isn't working suggests to me that overall it does a pretty good job.

I gave several examples. The issue here is that Fearon was not seeking justice, he was seeking compensation for being shot whilst burgling someone's house because the injuries sustained supposedly meant he was not able to go and burgle anyone else's house. He received 5000 in legal aid to pursue a quite preposterous claim that should not even have been considered.

 

[Seagull58]

In effect, you are criticizing the legal aid system rather than the ECHR. Legal aid has been abused by people from all walks of life, take Ernest Saunders as another example. As for the arsonist, he was 13 and the eventual result was that it was right that he couldn't be denied an education but that that did not have to be at the school which he set light to. What do you propose to do with kids that break the law? Are you suggesting at that age they should be on the scrap heap or should there be attempts to make them productive members of society?

By the way, do you cut and paste everything?

I'm cutting and pasting examples because they're examples. Isn't that the way to quote examples. Would you prefer that I made them up?

 

[Seagull58]

In effect, you are criticizing the legal aid system rather than the ECHR. Legal aid has been abused by people from all walks of life, take Ernest Saunders as another example. As for the arsonist, he was 13 and the eventual result was that it was right that he couldn't be denied an education but that that did not have to be at the school which he set light to. What do you propose to do with kids that break the law? Are you suggesting at that age they should be on the scrap heap or should there be attempts to make them productive members of society?

By the way, do you cut and paste everything?

No, he was pursuing his calim under the Human Rights Act. He received legal aid to pursue the claim. Kids who break the law should be punished.

 

[Nibble]

http://www.bhtaxiforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=211&t=1268&view=next

 

[jgmcdee]

The issue here is that Fearon was not seeking justice, he was seeking compensation

which in a civil case *is* justice. You can't sue someone to prison. And the ability for people to sue them won't change without a far more fundamental rewriting of law than the Tories are proposing.

for being shot whilst burgling someone's house because the injuries sustained supposedly meant he was not able to go and burgle anyone else's house.

No this isn't what he was suing for. He was suing for compensation against loss of sex life and inability to carry out his hobby of martial arts.

He received 5000 in legal aid to pursue a quite preposterous claim that should not even have been considered.

And that's the problem. It's not for you to say what should and shouldn't be considered. You are entitled to make your own value judgements, but if you expect them to be the basis of an entire country's laws then I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment. Instead, any case which is not explicitly excluded must be put through the system and at the end of it reviews can be undertaken and changes made if necessary. Yes it gives rise to cases like this (which by the way never even reached court) but I'd far rather have a system which starts lenient and can be reviewed than a system which is so stringent that the deserving cases which never pass through the gates are quietly forgotten forever more.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

This sums up the fact that some people will NEVER vote Tory or give them a hearing and of course some people will NEVER vote Labour. All parties are really targeting the floating voter who has no particular allegiance bar what seems to be the best offer going at the time.

As one of those (I have voted for all three main parties in the past) I can only say that the differences between Cameron's and Milliband's speeches were marked. Cameron showed passion and commitment and actually offered more to the lowest paid than the Labour leader. But the main point is that Cameron can deliver because he and Osbourne know how to manage an economy. Milliband and Balls don't and no one can deliver anything positive unless the economy is strong.

i've also voted for all 3 main parties in them past, we must be in the minority.
However i think Osborne and Cameron have proved that that they can't run an economy - we doubled dipped into recession - none of the other major economies did as far as i'm aware. Which is one of the reasons we're the 'fastest growing' now, we dropped needlessly low under their guidance...
As for how Milliband and Balls would do, i don't know - Milliband certainly doesn't have charisma - not sure how much of that is needed to do economics though?
I'm not sure which way to vote, both seem poor choices to be honest.

 

[Seagull58]

which in a civil case *is* justice. You can't sue someone to prison. And the ability for people to sue them won't change without a far more fundamental rewriting of law than the Tories are proposing.



No this isn't what he was suing for. He was suing for compensation against loss of sex life and inability to carry out his hobby of martial arts.



And that's the problem. It's not for you to say what should and shouldn't be considered. You are entitled to make your own value judgements, but if you expect them to be the basis of an entire country's laws then I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment. Instead, any case which is not explicitly excluded must be put through the system and at the end of it reviews can be undertaken and changes made if necessary. Yes it gives rise to cases like this (which by the way never even reached court) but I'd far rather have a system which starts lenient and can be reviewed than a system which is so stringent that the deserving cases which never pass through the gates are quietly forgotten forever more.

No, he sued for loss of earnings. He was not a gigolo nor a professional martial arts exponent. A claim for injuries sustained whilst committing a criminal act should have been refused without spending any legal aid.