Frenchy68 0 #26 December 17, 2004 QuoteI guess they all just really don't like my analogy. I like "punch to the nose/punch in the stomach" better "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #27 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteI guess they all just really don't like my analogy. I like "punch to the nose/punch in the stomach" better Body blow...body blow...body blow... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #28 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteBody blow...body blow...body blow... EXCELLENT game."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #29 December 17, 2004 I must say that it's something of a dissapointment to me to see that my thread about the rights and wrongs of imprisoning people without trial or charge has degenerated into a pissing match over who's been the worst hit by terrorism. Arguing over who's had the most kinsmen murdered seems a little odd... to me at least. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #30 December 17, 2004 Well, it seems to be a round about way for some to defend wrongful detention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,566 #31 December 17, 2004 QuoteI must say that it's something of a dissapointment to me to see that my thread about the rights and wrongs of imprisoning people without trial or charge has degenerated into a pissing match over who's been the worst hit by terrorism. Well in an effort to get it back on track, what do you think will happen now? The politicians I've heard talking about it so far have stated it is still a matter for the commons to decide, will this make any difference?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #32 December 18, 2004 QuoteI must say that it's something of a dissapointment to me to see that my thread about the rights and wrongs of imprisoning people without trial or charge has degenerated into a pissing match over who's been the worst hit by terrorism. Arguing over who's had the most kinsmen murdered seems a little odd... to me at least. Affirmative SOP for SC. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #33 December 20, 2004 QuoteWell in an effort to get it back on track, what do you think will happen now? The politicians I've heard talking about it so far have stated it is still a matter for the commons to decide, will this make any difference? Under our constitution Parliament is supreme and cannot be overruled by any other body. When the House of Lords ruled that the 2001 law was incompatible with human rights this has no direct effect on the law... but it is supposed to prompt Parliament to remedy the situation without delay. While the 1998 Human Rights act was being debated it was envisaged that Parliament would rush through an amendment to correct the offending act or even use delegated legislation to solve the conflict where appropriate. Whilst Parliament would be constitutionally within their rights to do nothing... that is far from what is expected of them. Kinda like the queen having to give consent to Bills before they are passed but never ever saying “no” (although that convention’s been around a good deal longer and as such has a lot more weight). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mr2mk1g 10 #29 December 17, 2004 I must say that it's something of a dissapointment to me to see that my thread about the rights and wrongs of imprisoning people without trial or charge has degenerated into a pissing match over who's been the worst hit by terrorism. Arguing over who's had the most kinsmen murdered seems a little odd... to me at least. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 December 17, 2004 Well, it seems to be a round about way for some to defend wrongful detention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,566 #31 December 17, 2004 QuoteI must say that it's something of a dissapointment to me to see that my thread about the rights and wrongs of imprisoning people without trial or charge has degenerated into a pissing match over who's been the worst hit by terrorism. Well in an effort to get it back on track, what do you think will happen now? The politicians I've heard talking about it so far have stated it is still a matter for the commons to decide, will this make any difference?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #32 December 18, 2004 QuoteI must say that it's something of a dissapointment to me to see that my thread about the rights and wrongs of imprisoning people without trial or charge has degenerated into a pissing match over who's been the worst hit by terrorism. Arguing over who's had the most kinsmen murdered seems a little odd... to me at least. Affirmative SOP for SC. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #33 December 20, 2004 QuoteWell in an effort to get it back on track, what do you think will happen now? The politicians I've heard talking about it so far have stated it is still a matter for the commons to decide, will this make any difference? Under our constitution Parliament is supreme and cannot be overruled by any other body. When the House of Lords ruled that the 2001 law was incompatible with human rights this has no direct effect on the law... but it is supposed to prompt Parliament to remedy the situation without delay. While the 1998 Human Rights act was being debated it was envisaged that Parliament would rush through an amendment to correct the offending act or even use delegated legislation to solve the conflict where appropriate. Whilst Parliament would be constitutionally within their rights to do nothing... that is far from what is expected of them. Kinda like the queen having to give consent to Bills before they are passed but never ever saying “no” (although that convention’s been around a good deal longer and as such has a lot more weight). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
