Again

[Guest alex]

Blair has more or less said that he believes he has God on his side over the whole Iraq War debacle too.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Blair has more or less said that he believes he has God on his side over the whole Iraq War debacle too.

135042[/snapback]

 

 

Was that in a tough, challenging interview he did with Michael "Arsekisser" Parkinson?

 

Or any of his other challenging interviews with Des O' Connor, Richard and Judy, Little Ant and Dec etc. He certianly doesn't fear getting the tough questions does he!

Edited May 11, 2006 by Papa Lazaru

[Guest alex]

You forgot about Football Focus

[Papa Lazaru 0]

You forgot about Football Focus

135046[/snapback]

 

 

I knew there was one more. After all Paxman has got nothing on Mark Lawrenson and Ray Stubbs!!!

[LeazesMag 0]

LM never did reply to my post in the thread about Iraq

135031[/snapback]

 

?

 

If I miss things you can always find me at my sig address

[LeazesMag 0]

It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

She's appealing isn't she ?

 

My point is they should accept our laws in the first place without going all that mallarky, at YOUR expense, or fuck off

 

EDIT.

 

I see the idea they should move to another school as they knew the rules, and of course that is correct, but the far bigger angle is touched by PL further down the thread, it WILL happen again. So the solution to that is throw the fuckers out to a country where they can go to school dressed the way they like if they want to do it so badly.

Edited May 11, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Papa Lazaru 0]

It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

She's appealing isn't she ?

135052[/snapback]

 

 

Not very, you can hardly see any of her in her outfit!

 

But appeals are another thing wrong with our legal system. Once a decision has been made by the due legal process through a court of law that should be it, unless some new and important evidence or change of events occurs. Or else what is the point of any decision if you can then just waste more time and money appealing it when nothign has changed at all from when the original verdict was reached.

[LeazesMag 0]

It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

She's appealing isn't she ?

135052[/snapback]

 

 

Not very, you can hardly see any of her in her outfit!

 

But appeals are another thing wrong with our legal system. Once a decision has been made by the due legal process through a court of law that should be it, unless some new and important evidence or change of events occurs. Or else what is the point of any decision if you can then just waste more time and money appealing it when nothign has changed at all from when the original verdict was reached.

135055[/snapback]

 

Correct

 

Further reluctance to accept rules...is all it is [in this case anyway]

Edited May 11, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Guest Sima]

LM never did reply to my post in the thread about Iraq

135031[/snapback]

 

?

 

If I miss things you can always find me at my sig address

135051[/snapback]

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=5693

[Renton 22729]

It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

She's appealing isn't she ?

135052[/snapback]

 

 

Not very, you can hardly see any of her in her outfit!

 

But appeals are another thing wrong with our legal system. Once a decision has been made by the due legal process through a court of law that should be it, unless some new and important evidence or change of events occurs. Or else what is the point of any decision if you can then just waste more time and money appealing it when nothign has changed at all from when the original verdict was reached.

135055[/snapback]

 

In criminal law, that is exactly the case - you can only appeal if there is reasonable doubt over the verdict or new evidence comes to light. In civil cases, like the muslim school girl case, I think you can appeal to a higher court until you get to the European courts? But once a precedent has been set here, that's it. It [the issue of wearing muslim clothes in schools] won't happen again, because no lawyer will take on a case which is essentially unwinnable due to precedent.

 

Perhaps Isegrim can clarify the issues.

[LeazesMag 0]

And she's an ugly cow.

 

Any agreement I had with you on the points you raised went out the window with that irrelevant comment.

135528[/snapback]

 

howay Bridget...only an off the cuff comment. You could say Tony had an ugly mug and it wouldn't effect if I agreed with you or not ?

 

I can't help it if I don't like her very much, which I don't because if I did then I wouldn't have said it anyway. I do agree it is irrelevant really.

 

What parts do you agree and disagree with ?

 

Reading Rentons comment about a lawyer not taking on the case, I see what he says, and I hope he is right.

Edited May 12, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

And she's an ugly cow.

 

Any agreement I had with you on the points you raised went out the window with that irrelevant comment.

135528[/snapback]

 

howay Bridget...only an off the cuff comment. You could say Tony had an ugly mug and it wouldn't effect if I agreed with you or not ?

 

I can't help it if I don't like her very much, which I don't because if I did then I wouldn't have said it anyway. I do agree it is irrelevant really.

 

What parts do you agree and disagree with ?

 

Reading Rentons comment about a lawyer not taking on the case, I see what he says, and I hope he is right.

135529[/snapback]

 

Fair enough - I'll write a proper reply later on, off out

135530[/snapback]

 

OK, have a canny night then

[peasepud 59]

what I cant understand about the hijacking thing is why they feel its unsafe to go back. When they claimed asylum the Taliban were in power therefore these people were running away from that regime. Now (thanks to Tony and Dubya) Afghanistan is a nice place to live so why would our law courts agree they shoudnt go back?

[LeazesMag 0]

what I cant understand about the hijacking thing is why they feel its unsafe to go back. When they claimed asylum the Taliban were in power therefore these people were running away from that regime. Now (thanks to Tony and Dubya) Afghanistan is a nice place to live so why would our law courts agree they shoudnt go back?

135592[/snapback]

 

Conning us good and proper ?

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't see how any reasonable person would want the hijackers to remain in the country and it goes to prove how out of touch the judiciary really are - which applies to a whole range of cases/sentencing etc.

 

I don't wholly agree in principle with the argument that if the Muslim lass didn't like the school, she should have gone elsewhere. For instance, the school I used to go to didn't allow girls to wear trousers (they eventually relented, but that was a clear example of the school being utterly unreasonable). However, with this girl, the school had gone to some lengths to accommodate the needs of Muslim students, in fact the headteacher was herself a Muslim and the girl's actions were divisive and attempt to institute a hierarchy amongst her fellow students. Needless to say, I have serious misgivings about women having to cover themselves up in the name of religion. Whilst it's un-PC to say this, Muslim countries have appalling human rights records especially when it comes to women. Our country is by no means perfect, but I quite enjoy having the right to work, vote, be educated etc.

 

With Cherie Blair, I can see why she would be reluctant to stop practising law, even when it comes to high profile cases, as a result of her husband's job. The only person it's likely to damage is Tony Blair himself though really. (If you discount the massive Legal Aid bills...) I've always disliked the fact that the media disproportionately attacked her simply because she had a job of her own and wasn't a Norma Major style wallflower and nice little wife.

135572[/snapback]

 

similarly married to a wallflower and nice little husband