This sounds a lot like Steve Gibson's InSpectre. Call the lawyers Steve.
55 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2009
So the unlawful killing is justified by the identification of the target. Whose identification? Under what judicial process was that determination made? While it may be convenient to use as your example a particularly nasty band of terrorist/freedom fighter - you pays your money, you makes your choice - The rather large Hellfire missile does not discriminate between jihadi and doctor tending the sick and innocent nearby.
When other nations acquire this technology and deploy it using their definition of terrorist are you going to so blithely cast aside the rule of law as you appear willing to do now, or is it only the size of the stick that counts?
And at the bottom of that particularly nasty cesspit is extra judicial execution although we now call it "drone strikes". Then as the act becomes normalised the politicians or military commanders who consume the fruit of this poison tree, look the other way while they elect Donald.
Have we learned nothing from Operation Phoenix in Vietnam? Around 20,000 tortured and executed...for what, a seat on the last helicopter out of Saigon?
"If a police officer stops your car for no reason at all"
The Police have no power to stop a vehicle "for no reason". They can however stop any vehicle for any reason provided it is in the execution of their duty as a constable in uniform. Any subsequent search of the vehicle must be in accordance with law (warrant, reasonable suspicion). Items found by an unlawful search makes prosecution very difficult...not impossible.
Scotland had no national debt as a result of the Darien failure. The Company of Scotland was privately funded and it was the investors that took the haircut.
The fact that those investors were mostly "anglo-scots" with lands and interests in England led to the English bribe, also called the "Equivilent" of £398,000 as compensation if the Union was driven through.
Have you never wondered where the term a Parcel of Rogues comes from?
Those that drove through the Union went on to form the Royal Bank of Scotland to better launder the monies that flowed from Scotland getting access to the commonwealth to trade thereafter.
It was Darien that brought about the Union, but we won't let your prejudice spoil a good troll.
Well....he returned a stone to the authorities. Just not the real one. It was broken removing it from the throne in Westminster Abbey and repaired by a stone mason in Glasgow by inserting a steel rod. He also made a couple of copies just in case.
The real stone was never handed back and lay under the hand of one of those involved in the taking, the Rev Nimmo in a church in Dundee until about 10 years ago when it was moved for safe keeping. I viewed it often.
It is telling that on recovery the authorities have always declined to x ray the stone as the original had a distinctive pin placed inside during the repair.
Just as well that the good burghers of Scone gave Edward I the lid of the St Marys Covent cesspit in 1296 in the first place.
Indeed. I suspect that Tom would not be comfortable with much of the "developed" world at present, but he always aimed higher than most men could see. It is past time for the current crop of politicians to revisit The Rights of Man.
The article didn't mention (or I missed it) that the rusty receiver wot you found in the shed is just as much a Firearm as defined by the 1968 Act as the finished article.
Section 1 (b) Firearms Act 1968 as amended ..."any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon;"
Would hate to think that people are strolling around with bits of firearms thinking that the Act doesn't apply to them 'cause the whole weapon is not there.
Point of order.....Brenda does not own Balmoral Castle or the Estate. It is held by a Trust under Deeds of Nomination and Appointment to avoid inheritance tax. The trustees are the Earl of Airlie, Sir Iain Tennant KT LLD, Sir Michael Peat the Keeper of the Privy Purse. And you thought we were all in this together.
"And even then I couldn't believe the number of people who advocated reintroducing predators to rip these things to shreds because that was better because it was 'natural'.
The reintroduction of a top level predator (wolf) to help control the red deer population makes perfect sense. Red deer and many other species of deer are kept at artificially high numbers to fund the stalking industry. With no predator large herds can stand all day eating the vegetation on the hill to the peat creating a desert and large fat lazy deer which over breed. From around 150,000 in the 60's Scotland now has around 400,000 red deer. The wolf invokes a genetic response to keep on the move so the herd can't eat all it sees and the weak and the excess young get culled. The alternative is forced culling by shooting and if you think that's better then you have not witnessed the wholesale carnage required to take out the 50,000 per year that the Forestry Commission take and they only manage 9% of Scotland's deer forest.
As the DMCA is US legislation perhaps you might care to point to the enabling UK legislation that allows Google "Safe Harbor (Harbour)" in the UK. The equivalent EU arrangement is only in respect of personal data.
I would not think that Google can rely upon the 2007 Viacom v Google case outside the US.
You miss the point.
The Acts of Union (there were two, one in Scotland and one in England) only ratified the Treaty of Union agreed between to two governments and signed by Queen Anne. There is no power given to the EU, or Westminster, in international Law to repeal or amend theTreaty, especially when the English version of the Act of Union states " “the said articles of union so as aforesaid ratified approved and confirmed by Act of Parliament of Scotland and by this present Act… are hereby enacted and ordained to be and continue in all times coming the complete and intire union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland”.
The Treaty of Union no longer exists in law when either party to the Union declares it ended.
"@Pen-y-gors - In the event that Scotland leaves the Union, they have done just that. England, Ireland and Wales remain the UK, they don't need to re-apply to the EU, "
Wrong - The UK was formed as a result of the 1707 Union between Scotland and England. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either.
Learn your history. We have already checked ours.
I would hope that you would expect them to be abiding by the law both morally and legally. As Ms Chakrabati most succinctly observed on the wireless this morning " If I was to break in into your home and copy the contents of your filing cabinet, pile it in bin bags and take it home to store it for 28 days, would you not be mildly put out?"
" If I grab your wallet and make a copy of your credit card numbers, I don't steal anything either."
Indeed you have. You have stolen my wallet and contents. Regardless of whether or not I recover all or part of my wallet and contents and regardless of how long you have deprived me of there use, you have committed a theft.
What happens to the credit card info thereafter is FUD.
Making a copy of a protected work may well be actionable in most jurisdictions but it is not theft.
Correct if you take his car to have wee hurl aroond and intend to dump it later then you have no stolen it. Take and drive away is the short hand version from the Road Traffic Act. In Scotland it prior to the statues to deal with it, it would have been libelled at common law as Clandestine Possession.
It you nick the motor with no intention of dumping it and strip it down into bits and flog them off, them yes it is theft. Make as many copies as you like, you may have committed a civil offence but you certainly have not stolen it.
Speaking as someone who lives in line of sight of the aforementioned palace of porcine splendiferousness, I can reveal that the secret ingredient of the winning sarnie is .......a quick trip through the deep fat fryer just prior to hitting the white bread doorstep. They have followed that recipe for years and there is not an unblocked artery for 10 miles in any direction.
There was no £850bn bailout.
The original NAO report shows that the total amount provided by the UK Treasury to bailout the British banking system was £753 billion. Of this, SPICe estimated that £470 billion relates to RBS and HBOS – but it is only an educated guess because the Treasury has provided no detailed breakdown. However, this does not - repeat, not - mean that the Treasury actually spent £470 billion in cash, paid for by the taxpayer.
First, the Labour Government took an 83 per cent stake in RBS, paying £45.5 billion in cash, and agreed to insure its riskiest assets for an annual fee. But it charged the bank for the insurance, making a profit on the deal. Again, Brown and Darling injected £20 billion into Lloyds Banking Group, which had acquired HBOS at their urging, in exchange for a 41 per cent stake. The Treasury also provided additional guarantees to insure Lloyd’s liquidity. And again, it charged for the priviledge.
So that makes an upfront payment of only £65.5 billion in cash and the rest in “guarantees” which the banks pay for. But where did the £65.5 billion in cash come from? The taxpayer? No – it was borrowed especially to fund the deal. However, as this borrowing was set against the bank shares acquired, it does not count as part of the Treasury’s net debt. In other words, it is merely a book-keeping transaction (though interest is paid). Any country of any size could do it. According to JPMorgan Chase, the annual cost of servicing that loan is around £3.2 billion. So the actual cost of rescuing RBS and Loyds was…er, £3.2 billion per year minus the charge to the banks for insuring them.
I quite understand your stance on no hype and straight facts reporting of this incident, but it is really unreasonable to expect your drinking water not to come with an added bonus of Iodine 131?
You make it sound a bit like the burglar who shat in the householders pot of mince and forced him to have to throw half of it away.