OT Blind c**t set to go?

Champ emerged from their own little world to say

followed by "Archer jailed"

 

Stritchy wrote

Who?

 

Mr Clarke said he was "exhilarated" by the challenge ahead but added: "There
will be continuity between David's approach and mine."

****!
--
Alex

YZF 600

"I laugh in the face of danger"

"Then I hide until it goes away"

www.upce.org.uk
www.drzoidberg.co.uk

 

Well, that's because it's all Blair's agenda. You have to cut off the head.

 

Dr Zoidberg emerged from their own little world to say

He wasn't likely to say anything else just after a Queen's speech geared to
influence the next election.

It's not like they will keep any of the promises, after the election, once
Gordon has worked out how many wars they will need to put on hold to
finance ID cards and the like.

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dr Zoidberg"

Baroness Kennedy had a nice swipe at him;
"He never understood the difference between law and order."

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

So, the blind leading the blind.

 

And on a similar note (from a human rights lawyer):

"I understand that a Home Secretary has to be concerned with law and
order but it's a shame he was more concerned with order than law".

Phil

 

Dr Ivan D. Reid emerged from their own little world to say

Googles. Ah, http://www.abc.net.au/archives/timeline/1970s.htm

Nothing like a bit of colonial interference in domestic politics.

I scanned the rest of the list - WTF were you lot doing with bridges
back in the 70s?

I was also quite impressed with the last entry in the list of
significant events in Australian history of the 1970s:

"Mel Gibson stars in Mad Max"

 

Stritchy secured a place in history by writing:

From today's Guardian leader:

"No politician of modern times has had greater contempt for the rule of law
or been readier to express it in public. None has been less in awe of the
independence of the judiciary. Few have been as cavalier in their disregard
of civil liberties or appeared to play faster and looser with the language
of liberty and rights."

About sums it up for me. In his own way I think the bloke spoke out for
what he felt was right, and has gone, in some sense, honourably. But, ****,
he was dangerous.

 

Don't forget to cauterise the neck before two more heads grow there, and
it would probably be a good idea to burn the head too. You can't be too
careful with these things.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Stritchy

You know, on reflection, I can think of no more damning verdict on
Blunkett than this:

One of the most sympathetic write ups of his departure was published in
today's Daily Mail.

--
Nigel - Manufacturer of the "Champion-105" range of rearsets

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
ZZR1100, Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (On its hols) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Ferger <> saying
something like:

I'm glad he's gone, but it only goes to show that, with all the hounds
of hell on his tail trying to find something, anything, to pin on him,
all they could come up with was a discrepancy in his nanny's visa
processing and the unauthorised use of a travel ticket.

I suppose that says something about his honesty; but by ****, he was a
dangerous bastard, I agree.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

What did you expect? Blunkett was there because good old Tony wanted him:
of course his replacement will do much the same. All we cam hope for is a
bit less zeal.

 

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

The opportunities are limited for a blind man to be dishonest.

I am surprised that the press didn't make more of the fact that
a cad with the morals of an alley cat should not be home secretary.

 

Still, he won't have too easy a time of it - the Law Lords clearly aren't
impressed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1375827,00.html

Indeed. I thought you were being crypto-sardonic.

 

They can't actually stop it though, can they?

 

Sadly, it would appear that the current fascist[1] regime intend to
ignore the ruling.


[1] Only just occurred to me, but it really seems to be getting like
that.

 

I was reading something posted by a law student who stated that the Lords
can obstruct and condemn potential legislation but they can't actually stop
it. I assume that refers to the law lords as well as the rest of 'em.

 

Ahh no, You're getting confused. The _House_ of Lords, as part of the
legislative body, acts on the passage of a bill through parliament and
can propose amendments and/or delay its progress, although not put a
complete block on it.

The "Law Lords" are actually more like a Supreme Court, so are
involved in interpreting and applying law, not making it. In this case
it seems that they've ruled that laws already in place are contrary to
EU laws, but they can't actually force the gubmint to drop them.