Ah, the great Mrs T! Are you still smarting about not being allowed time off work to mourn and watch her funeral?

On the day of this public waste of money I was at a meeting at our head office in Milton Keynes, populated mostly by drones who's main topic of conversation is how much their house is worth this week, I am sure most of them are cloned from the stem cells of George Osbourne. In the foyer there was a notice saying 'there will be prayers as a mark of respect for Baroness Thatcher at 11am in the auditorium'. Needless to say, most of us 'norvern scam' gave it a miss.

Thankfully I was in Switzerland so did not have of that to deal with.





PS I would guess their houses weren't worth alot given the number of vacant business premises in Central Milton Keynes these days?

Your partially-baked, ill-informed, nincompoopery is incredible.





Utter bollox.





Because the ECHR is a supra-national court specifically set up to judge on issues of human rights.

Being supra-national helps to avoid being swayed by nationalist bias.

The judges come from the group of nations that are signatories to it.

Would you rather they didn't?







Your knowledge of history is both selective and skewed.

To even think that [uonly[/u Germany is capable of transgressing human rights is, frankly, stupid.

The ECHR was set up by the very nations who believe in democracy.

The UK signed up to the ECHR, voluntarily, long before we joined the EU and the ECHR is not an EU body.





The ECHR doesn't decide how the UK can deal with terrorists, it decides on whether there is a human rights issue ... the clue is in the name.

Germany is already "broken up" politically, using a federal system of Länder imposed upon it, after WWII, by the very nations you describe as having brought freedom and democracy to Europe.

(In case it escapes your notice, your much-trumpeted land of the free and home of the brave USA is also a federal nation)

Not that we have a federal Europe in any case but if we had one based on the same principles, no single nation state would have power over the others, that's the point of a federation, dimwit.





Thatcher opposed anything that she couldn't control.

She rarely listened to views other than her own.

at the first part, but its not "European" judges, it's British judges ruling on the law of the land (in the case of Qatada), because the government of the day doesn't know what that is and cannot behave appropriately.







If the C is Convention, I'm sure you won't mind your human rights being infringed if we do opt out. If C is Court, then the (UK) Human Rights Act provides for cases to avoid having to go to the European Court, as policymakers and courts in the UK are required to take the convention into account when making policy/laws/decisions. It means fewer cases should go to the Strasbourg court, thereby reducing costs to the taxpayer. Or are you advocating that May should go and lose her case in Strasbourg, costing the taxpayer even more than it has already?

First – after consultation among all the moderators, it was decided, some time ago, that such language is unacceptable. Consider this a warning on that matter.



Second – this is an ideal opportunity to make a larger reminder to some of our trolls that, in general, this has been a tad more civilised a place recently. So, a) let's keep that going. b) If any of you have nothing more to contribute than the same 'arguments', over and over, illustrating only that either you are incapable of understanding what has been posted in response previously or have no inclination to do so, then action will be taken. Such an approach contributes absolutely nothing of value to any discussion.

as an open question, does an opinion be more civilised the closer it is to yours, or another moderator?



The Sin Bin, in my opinion, has become more sanitised, if your opinion doesn't fit the norm then you're gone. It's like the Socialist Worker.



accepts ban for no reason in advance

Look at it this way - if you were discussing politics in a pub tap room with strangers, would you feel it necessary, constructive or socially acceptable to call someone a moron to his face simply because they held slightly different political views to yours ?

possibly not, but I'd also net feel it necessary to pre-dispose myself to banning them



we used to promote deabate, now it's just socialist dogma.



but I guess it shows why rugby retains it's origins.

Yes.



Because we are renowned on the [iSin Bin[/i for banning people simply because they don't agree with some (allegedly) general and (presumably) pre-agreed political ethos (which all we mod and admin types share totally).





And if you look more carefully at the two parts of the post that you have quoted, you will see that they cover different things.

Depends on how big he is

But the main thing they don't do is agree with you, is any post against the AUP?