Really? During World War 1 Germans living in Britain were locked up without trial, where they were deemed to pose a security risk. During World War 2 Germans and domestic fascists were detained without trial. How often on a battlefield do soldiers have to consider the "right to life" of enemy combatants? Do you think that during the D-Day landings the Allied forces had time to put the German troops on trial before it was legitimate to take action against them?

Are you crazy? Was it the British government that detonated the bombs on 7/7? Was it the British government that drove a car into Glasgow airport with the intention of blowing it up? Was it the US government that flew the planes into the WTC on 9/11? Was it the Indian government that staged the mass shootings in Mumbai? Was it the Indonesian government that detonated bombs in Bali? Please could you provide me with some figures showing how many British innocent British citizens have been killed in this country by the Labour/Tory governments to support the idea that the Government is more dangerous than the Islamist terrorists who which to abolish democracy, remove all our freedoms and kill all of us that reverse to accept Islamism?

Thankfully there were not morons like you during World War 2. You would have been moaning that Churchill represented a big danger to Britain than the Luftwaffe flying over our skies during the Battle of Britain or bombing our cities during the Blitz.

S14
p13
- a) If a person or persons born outside the EU are deemed to be "taking the mickey" by a jury of 100 of their peers, they shall be found guilty and deportedback to their country of origin forthwith.

Well that's certainly "common" but you are missing the "sense" bit by a bus stop

Yes, lots of things happened 70 and 100 years ago that don't happen now, the author who seems to think that you are a real person would probably have been locked up for schizophrenia for one thing, if you look a little closer to the real time date you'll see the reality of what happens when soldiers mistreat prisoners and the reality of what transpires when a state decides to imprison "suspects" without trial - how long would you like to detain political prisoners for ?

Anti-terrorism legislation doesn't require you to have actually [idone[/i anything to get banged up. Or at least put under effective house arrest.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17769990Abu Qatada's timeline from 1993 to present[/url

Seems like there's been penty of opportunity to put him before a British court, you have to wonder why it hasn't happened

You do don't you, wonder what the reasons could be !!

Ah, the great Mrs T! Are you still smarting about not being allowed time off work to mourn and watch her funeral?

On the day of this public waste of money I was at a meeting at our head office in Milton Keynes, populated mostly by drones who's main topic of conversation is how much their house is worth this week, I am sure most of them are cloned from the stem cells of George Osbourne. In the foyer there was a notice saying 'there will be prayers as a mark of respect for Baroness Thatcher at 11am in the auditorium'. Needless to say, most of us 'norvern scam' gave it a miss.

Thankfully I was in Switzerland so did not have of that to deal with.


PS I would guess their houses weren't worth alot given the number of vacant business premises in Central Milton Keynes these days?

Your partially-baked, ill-informed, nincompoopery is incredible.


Utter bollox.


Because the ECHR is a supra-national court specifically set up to judge on issues of human rights.
Being supra-national helps to avoid being swayed by nationalist bias.
The judges come from the group of nations that are signatories to it.
Would you rather they didn't?



Your knowledge of history is both selective and skewed.
To even think that [uonly[/u Germany is capable of transgressing human rights is, frankly, stupid.
The ECHR was set up by the very nations who believe in democracy.
The UK signed up to the ECHR, voluntarily, long before we joined the EU and the ECHR is not an EU body.


The ECHR doesn't decide how the UK can deal with terrorists, it decides on whether there is a human rights issue ... the clue is in the name.
Germany is already "broken up" politically, using a federal system of Länder imposed upon it, after WWII, by the very nations you describe as having brought freedom and democracy to Europe.
(In case it escapes your notice, your much-trumpeted land of the free and home of the brave USA is also a federal nation)
Not that we have a federal Europe in any case but if we had one based on the same principles, no single nation state would have power over the others, that's the point of a federation, dimwit.


Thatcher opposed anything that she couldn't control.
She rarely listened to views other than her own.

at the first part, but its not "European" judges, it's British judges ruling on the law of the land (in the case of Qatada), because the government of the day doesn't know what that is and cannot behave appropriately.



If the C is Convention, I'm sure you won't mind your human rights being infringed if we do opt out. If C is Court, then the (UK) Human Rights Act provides for cases to avoid having to go to the European Court, as policymakers and courts in the UK are required to take the convention into account when making policy/laws/decisions. It means fewer cases should go to the Strasbourg court, thereby reducing costs to the taxpayer. Or are you advocating that May should go and lose her case in Strasbourg, costing the taxpayer even more than it has already?

First – after consultation among all the moderators, it was decided, some time ago, that such language is unacceptable. Consider this a warning on that matter.

Second – this is an ideal opportunity to make a larger reminder to some of our trolls that, in general, this has been a tad more civilised a place recently. So, a) let's keep that going. b) If any of you have nothing more to contribute than the same 'arguments', over and over, illustrating only that either you are incapable of understanding what has been posted in response previously or have no inclination to do so, then action will be taken. Such an approach contributes absolutely nothing of value to any discussion.

as an open question, does an opinion be more civilised the closer it is to yours, or another moderator?

The Sin Bin, in my opinion, has become more sanitised, if your opinion doesn't fit the norm then you're gone. It's like the Socialist Worker.

accepts ban for no reason in advance

Look at it this way - if you were discussing politics in a pub tap room with strangers, would you feel it necessary, constructive or socially acceptable to call someone a moron to his face simply because they held slightly different political views to yours ?

possibly not, but I'd also net feel it necessary to pre-dispose myself to banning them

we used to promote deabate, now it's just socialist dogma.

but I guess it shows why rugby retains it's origins.

Yes.

Because we are renowned on the [iSin Bin[/i for banning people simply because they don't agree with some (allegedly) general and (presumably) pre-agreed political ethos (which all we mod and admin types share totally).



And if you look more carefully at the two parts of the post that you have quoted, you will see that they cover different things.

Depends on how big he is

But the main thing they don't do is agree with you, is any post against the AUP?

If that were the case, a lot of other posters would have gone ages ago.



Moderators on any and all forums have the authority to ban someone if they are trolling in such a way as for it to become a distraction from anything else. That doesn't mean trolling per se (which I do not, personally, take to mean being abusive per se) is barred.

I always used/use the pub tap room marker as the standard to which internet forum discussion should take place and I've banned people on southstander.com for overstepping that mark - if you wouldn't say it in public, face to face with another party who is a stranger to you, then it doesn't belong on a forum, and lets face it, the pub tap room can be the most lively of debating chambers and attract the most diverse of opinions - its a good measuring post.