Gringo

That's my concern. Emergency legislation to patch the existing law could have been enacted the next day - replacing the 'new evidence' requirement with a judicial view that charges were likely - not perfect, but you could have got that through both houses with a promise of reviewed legislation to follow in the next sitting. It would have taken 15 minutes to draft and be in place already. But they're allowing the story to run with the sun et al reporting scare stories of rapists and nonces being set free because of stupid judges. So now public opinion is all facing in one direction, ie the requirement for the police to hold people as they see fit.

Do you lot not get the 'mañana' concept?

For a couple of days this 'abberation' was presented as an abberation of judicial process, interpreting the letter not the spirit of the law. It was refreshing to hear a different opinion on R4 that the judge was right and the police need to stop this abuse of the practice. This was followed up with a letter to the yoghurt knitters by a group of solicitors (though I suspect the one from 'fitwatch' might be rantin rob in disguise) When the law was introduced 96 hours meant 96 hours, not 96 hours spread over 6 months. Are the govt acting so slowly as the wording of whatever legislation they produce would be too obvious in terms of reach - it has to be explicit for the judges not to overrule it. A friend of mine left his company to start up a rival venture. His previous employers weren't happy. They offered him more money, then tried to get him put on three months gardening leave, and when that failed they reported him for fraud of approx £20k (his outlet was turning over approx £2m per annum up from £600k when he joined 6 years ago). He's been on police bail for 15 months, with nothing but (extremely) circumstancial evidence against him and it's massively affected his nature and confidence. There has been no new evidence for 15 months, but every three months he has to attend the station to get bailed again. This law is being abused, how will it be replaced?

Your not seriously comparing a manager that was the best thing to ever happen to Aberdean FC? A manager that could beat Celtic/Rangers etc and make Aberdean the best club in Scotland...To a man that took Rangers into 3rd place behind Hearts in recent times? Then took Biringham down twice in 3 years..Not to mention his Scotland side that lost 2-0 to Georgia.. Maybe you missed the phrase "silly comparisons". I was simply pointing out that nonsense shouty posts encourage silly repsonses .

No he doesn't it's a silly come back to a silly post. Steaknchips seems destined for the sirgarycahill / smalljob reputation of spouting nonsense. Most don't bite, but when they do it's with silly wish destinations like the chumps league qualification or silly comparisons with sacking ferguson after five years without winning the title

If you want a tax to succeed you don't call it the 'robin hood tax'

It happens all the time. Repetition is the mainstay of the main VT forum. Even your accusations of repetion are repetitive.

The first in a new series of Monthly Polls on the Manager. Poll open until end of July. Results since last poll: Well none really. So what are we voting on? Just a bit of a baseline I guess, more than a real assessment - seeing as the (pre-)season really starts now.

Johann Hahahahahari

Well they've only had five weeks (since the original ruling) to prepare for this so give them time. I did expect emergency legislation to be presented today, but I guess when you have window dressing for ministerial appointments then tiger skin shoes will only get you so far.

You forgot about the other ones being encouraged to start their working life with £40k+ of debt.

Law And Order to grind to a halt?

Seeing as I don't currently run a network of branches belonging to a bank that has robbed the nation, then it is unlikely to be my windows. If I had upset people to the extent that 100s of thousands of people were marching against me, the windows would probably be the least of my worries. That wouldn't of course stop me from informing my press officers to brief the murdoch et al media about the damage it caused so the obedient droids could lap it up. Going back to the G20 protests - that's exactly what they did - peaceful march, loads of press, loads of polce around. A group of balaclava wearing provocateurs run up and smash a few windows. The press all managed to get within two feet whilst nearly all the polce remained watching. The exception of course being the police cameraman already inside the building filming the smashing from the other side. State compliance? On the back of this the police responded immediately by waiting for seven hours and then rounding up a group of completely different people in a different area and subjecting them to illegal kettling. The result of which actions of course ended in the death of an innocent bystander (which of course was blamed on the protestors). But that's just a nice diversion from the fact that the greek crisis was caused by (in order of blame) the bankers, the greek govt and the eu govt, and that some think that this should be paid for by (in order of share of costs) the eu taxpayers and the greek taxpayers.

Of course it would be preferable if no one got hurt. And that goes for the state with their provacateurs, unmarked police officers and illegal kettling tactics as well. The state seeks to provoke violence to give themselves an excusse to crack down. Whereas a few broken windows I'm hardly fussed about - you have to make some noise to be heard.

No - it tarnishes the cause in the eyes of the obedient drones who slavishly follow the lead of the media and politicians. The media and the politicians tend to know what the real story is. Now they're trying to gether popular support. The politicians and the media do have their own agendas and it requires popular support to force them to listen to the peole.

That is nonsense if you are suggesting that, as soon as someone may get caught up in something violent (as you have latterly openly admitted may happen), they cease to be a genuine protestor. No, but I do think if you start commiting acts of violence it will hurt your cause and the cause of the other protestors along side you. No. It will only hurt the cause in the eyes of the obedient droids. So what kinds of violence are you suggesting are acceptable then? I didn't say it was acceptable, but that it was only the obedient droids that would see one violent act or a very small minority (ie in the recent london protests where we 300k peaceful protestors and 0.1% of that number breaking windows, and the media and the politicians concentrataed on the 0.1% and the obediant droids follow their lead) and use that to tarnish the whole cause of the protestors. It's the sort of simplistic attitude thatcher took to football fans and their ID cards back in the 90s. Anyone taking a serious view of the issues will look past that.

That is nonsense if you are suggesting that, as soon as someone may get caught up in something violent (as you have latterly openly admitted may happen), they cease to be a genuine protestor. No, but I do think if you start commiting acts of violence it will hurt your cause and the cause of the other protestors along side you. No. It will only hurt the cause in the eyes of the obedient droids.

Well upon til a page ago the subject was the euro and the greek debt crisis, but you started having a go at protestors.

You keep going on about protestor violence, even referring to year old incidents, but not a mention of the police shooting dead protestors.

This is what 32 years of thatcherism does to a country

Indeed, most would call them agent provacteurs and are paid by the govt.

Indeed what happened a year ago was extremely regrettable. But to say that means the 'protestors' (I like the way you put it in quotes as if ...?) are out of controls would be equivalent to say the state was out of control for the shooting of the 15 year old boy back in 2008 that has sparked the whole cycle of violence.

lolz

If you hedge it with the right CDSs you should be able to guarantee a proft either way - and if the ecb 'force' a rollover of debt you could end up winning on both bets.

So it's a trading pact. Like it used to be?