Governments double standards?

10 Mar 2009

Of course you know..dont you Deecee? wink

Old Cherie does it for the love of the job. lol

:lol:
She does nothing for nothing and I bet her salery runs into well over, shall we guess? Half a million a year? Less or more?
People are just so quick to stick up for the freeloaders nowadays. The judicial system is a joke at the best of times, I think a lot of people would agree with that.
Most judges live on planet Zob, and are clearly told what to do by Governemnts, as to sentencing.
But then what do i know? As you so aptly put it.

10 Mar 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
He leads us into a war with the Yanks, and then of all jobs becomes a peace envoy FFS. A peace envoy. Thats like giving Peter Sutcliff some knives and then give him a butchers job.

That above quote, I've put in bold is the greatest
of the year.
biggrin

Love it, kent. Blue Peter Badge in the post.
Correct.

10 Mar 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
Of course you know..dont you Deecee?
Old Cherie does it for the love of the job. :lol:
She does nothing for nothing and I bet her salery runs into well over, shall we guess? Half a million a year? Less or more?
People are just so quick to stick up for the freeloaders nowadays. The judicial system is a joke at the best of times, I think a lot of people would agree with that.
Most judges live on planet Zob, and are clearly told what to do by Governemnts, as to sentencing.
But then what do i know? As you so aptly put it.

and the rest... when she was "first lady" (ffs) she had the best office in Westminster - at the public expense of course!! :grin:

10 Mar 2009

Quote by Wunderhorse
He leads us into a war with the Yanks, and then of all jobs becomes a peace envoy FFS. A peace envoy. Thats like giving Peter Sutcliff some knives and then give him a butchers job.

That above quote, I've put in bold is the greatest
of the year.
biggrin

Love it, kent. Blue Peter Badge in the post.
Correct.
Ooooooh a Blue Peter badge. Never had one of those, though I have everything else. wink

10 Mar 2009

Quote by kentswingers777

Come on Kent, give the woman some due: she's a QC. It's her job.

She COULD become a prosecuting barrister? But oh no she takes the easy route.....money in the bank...lots of it.
We need defence barristers as well or should they only become prosecuting QCs? That is a one sided legal system
Dave_Notts

10 Mar 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts

Come on Kent, give the woman some due: she's a QC. It's her job.

She COULD become a prosecuting barrister? But oh no she takes the easy route.....money in the bank...lots of it.
We need defence barristers as well or should they only become prosecuting QCs? That is a one sided legal system
Dave_Notts
I honestly think he believes we should have a one-sided system.... even though he doesnt have a clue about how this one works and pays.... not to mention and the deeper ethical and moral issues.
Kent would like a system where, on a daily basis,"the public" (his prefered Media editor/reporter) choose a victim (fellow human being who has done nothing wrong to him specifically)for public humiliation and flogging/execution in the center of town ( SH cafe).

10 Mar 2009

Quote by DeeCee

Come on Kent, give the woman some due: she's a QC. It's her job.

She COULD become a prosecuting barrister? But oh no she takes the easy route.....money in the bank...lots of it.
We need defence barristers as well or should they only become prosecuting QCs? That is a one sided legal system
Dave_Notts
I honestly think he believes we should have a one-sided system.... even though he doesnt have a clue about how this one works and pays.... not to mention and the deeper ethical and moral issues.
Kent would like a system where, on a daily basis,"the public" (his prefered Media editor/reporter) choose a victim (fellow human being who has done nothing wrong to him specifically)for public humiliation and flogging/execution in the center of town ( SH cafe).
If and I say IF you have anything to do with the legal side of things, I hope I never get you to represent me.
I would rather cut my wrists.
Now go and put your dummy back in, and your romper suit. wink

Cos to be honest I am getting tired of your childish behavour, and you moan about people getting pissed off with me? Watch out cos it could be you they are getting pissed off with, with your constant sniping....now pack it in.

10 Mar 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
If and I say IF you have anything to do with the legal side of things, I hope I never get you to represent me.
I would rather cut my wrists.
Now go and put your dummy back in, and your romper suit.
Cos to be honest I am getting tired of your childish behavour, and you moan about people getting pissed off with me? Watch out cos it could be you they are getting pissed off with, with your constant sniping....now pack it in.

oh you do make me lol

have you any comment to make on what I said though vis a vis your over generalizations and innacurracies reference Cherie Blair and lawyers pay?
or how you expect there to be a fair legal system with only prosecution barristers?
or are you just gonna get arsey with me for making a point contrary to your opinion on your thread?

10 Mar 2009

Quote by DeeCee

If and I say IF you have anything to do with the legal side of things, I hope I never get you to represent me.
I would rather cut my wrists.
Now go and put your dummy back in, and your romper suit.
Cos to be honest I am getting tired of your childish behavour, and you moan about people getting pissed off with me? Watch out cos it could be you they are getting pissed off with, with your constant sniping....now pack it in.

oh you do make me lol

have you any comment to make on what I said though vis a vis your over generalizations and innacurracies reference Cherie Blair and lawyers pay?
or how you expect there to be a fair legal system with only prosecution barristers?
or are you just gonna get arsey with me for making a point contrary to your opinion on your thread?
I think T7 made a fair point.
You seem to be the one with the problem here and are clearly angling for a fight despite your pleadings yesterday in a different thread that you are "whiter than white".
Your actions don't seem to match your words.

10 Mar 2009

I have no problem with DeeCee
lp
no, I'm Spartacus!

10 Mar 2009

Quote by GnV

If and I say IF you have anything to do with the legal side of things, I hope I never get you to represent me.
I would rather cut my wrists.
Now go and put your dummy back in, and your romper suit.
Cos to be honest I am getting tired of your childish behavour, and you moan about people getting pissed off with me? Watch out cos it could be you they are getting pissed off with, with your constant sniping....now pack it in.

oh you do make me lol

have you any comment to make on what I said though vis a vis your over generalizations and innacurracies reference Cherie Blair and lawyers pay?
or how you expect there to be a fair legal system with only prosecution barristers?
or are you just gonna get arsey with me for making a point contrary to your opinion on your thread?
I think T7 made a fair point.
You seem to be the one with the problem here and are clearly angling for a fight despite your pleadings yesterday in a different thread that you are "whiter than white".
Your actions don't seem to match your words.
I think you need to re-read the post that you are referring to....rather than just brown nose KentSwingers 777.
things are not as they seem to be to you. You must again be confused. I didnt portray myself as whiter than white. I just said that some of the content of the thread was sick and that some of you were making points that were pretty unsavoury and more suited to the sites that they have been lifted from.
I was virtually told to fuck off yesterday and mind my own business...and a few more things besides.
but i took on board that this IS a forum and if topics are up for debate , then WHY shouldnt I get involved.
By the way... do u have anything to add to the debate?

10 Mar 2009

Quote by GnV

If and I say IF you have anything to do with the legal side of things, I hope I never get you to represent me.
I would rather cut my wrists.
Now go and put your dummy back in, and your romper suit.
Cos to be honest I am getting tired of your childish behavour, and you moan about people getting pissed off with me? Watch out cos it could be you they are getting pissed off with, with your constant sniping....now pack it in.

oh you do make me lol

have you any comment to make on what I said though vis a vis your over generalizations and innacurracies reference Cherie Blair and lawyers pay?
or how you expect there to be a fair legal system with only prosecution barristers?
or are you just gonna get arsey with me for making a point contrary to your opinion on your thread?
I think T7 made a fair point.
You seem to be the one with the problem here and are clearly angling for a fight despite your pleadings yesterday in a different thread that you are "whiter than white".
Your actions don't seem to match your words.
If people are going to debate then they should answer the questions posed to them, especially if the other person has answered theirs.
In my mind, if the other person does not answer the question then they must agree. So therefore, Kenty must agree with what DeeCee put down. If he doesn't then it makes for a poor debate.
Dave_Notts

10 Mar 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts

If and I say IF you have anything to do with the legal side of things, I hope I never get you to represent me.
I would rather cut my wrists.
Now go and put your dummy back in, and your romper suit.
Cos to be honest I am getting tired of your childish behavour, and you moan about people getting pissed off with me? Watch out cos it could be you they are getting pissed off with, with your constant sniping....now pack it in.

oh you do make me lol

have you any comment to make on what I said though vis a vis your over generalizations and innacurracies reference Cherie Blair and lawyers pay?
or how you expect there to be a fair legal system with only prosecution barristers?
or are you just gonna get arsey with me for making a point contrary to your opinion on your thread?
I think T7 made a fair point.
You seem to be the one with the problem here and are clearly angling for a fight despite your pleadings yesterday in a different thread that you are "whiter than white".
Your actions don't seem to match your words.
If people are going to debate then they should answer the questions posed to them, especially if the other person has answered theirs.
In my mind, if the other person does not answer the question then they must agree. So therefore, Kenty must agree with what DeeCee put down. If he doesn't then it makes for a poor debate.
Dave_Notts
Nope but.....I really cannot be arsed with somebody that deliberatly sets out to annoy. I do not mind an arguement but his opinions either about me or against me are getting very personel.
I can handle that, I always do but...will not argue with somebody who has a childish attitude just because I put him right a while back.
I try to move on when another thread is started but ...some just cannot let it rest.....now where's that dummy? :wink:
I will not reply anymore on this thread, as have become very bored.

10 Mar 2009

An extract.... lifted from Wiki.. about the legal career of Cherie Blair
Legal career
A member of Lincoln's Inn, she became a barrister in 1976 and Queen's Counsel in 1995. In 1999, she was appointed a Recorder (a permanent part-time judge) in the County Court and Crown Court. She was Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University from 1999-2006, and on 26 July 2006 was awarded the honorary title of Emeritus Chancellor. She is also Governor of the London School of Economics and the Open University. She is a founding member of Matrix Chambers in London from which she continues to practise as a barrister. Matrix was formed in 2000 specialising in human rights law, though members also practise in a range of areas of UK public and private law, the Law of the European Union and European Convention on Human Rights, and public international law.
She specialises in employment, discrimination and public law and in this capacity has occasionally represented claimants taking cases against the UK government.
Cherie Blair has appeared in a number of leading cases. A notable example before the European Court of Justice was concerned with discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. See ECJ Case C-249/96, Lisa Jacqueline Grant vs. South-West Trains Ltd. In November 2007, she expressed interest in becoming a senior judge.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm failing to find the so-salled scumbags(to whom Kentswingers referred) she represents in that brief list.
Note the fact that she specialises in Human Rights and anti-discrimination cases....
No wonder he doesnt like her!!!!
And no wonder he doesnt wish to comment further.
Fuck me... I should become a lawyer!!!

10 Mar 2009

Quote by kentswingers777

If people are going to debate then they should answer the questions posed to them, especially if the other person has answered theirs.
In my mind, if the other person does not answer the question then they must agree. So therefore, Kenty must agree with what DeeCee put down. If he doesn't then it makes for a poor debate.
Dave_Notts

Nope but.....I really cannot be arsed with somebody that deliberatly sets out to annoy. I do not mind an arguement but his opinions either about me or against me are getting very personel.
I can handle that, I always do but...will not argue with somebody who has a childish attitude just because I put him right a while back.
I try to move on when another thread is started but ...some just cannot let it rest.....now where's that dummy? wink

I will not reply anymore on this thread, as have become very bored.
Flouncing was usually restricted to people leaving the forum.
Flouncing a topic seems to be getting more popular. It must be easier than answering a question in a debate.......... confused

Dave_Notts

10 Mar 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
It must be easier than answering a question in a debate..........
Dave_Notts

Why let debate get in the way of rhetoric. lol

10 Mar 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
Nope but.....I really cannot be arsed with somebody that deliberatly sets out to annoy. I do not mind an arguement but his opinions either about me or against me are getting very personel.
I can handle that, I always do but...will not argue with somebody who has a childish attitude just because I put him right a while back.
I try to move on when another thread is started but ...some just cannot let it rest.....now where's that dummy?
I will not reply anymore on this thread, as have become very bored.

support ticket???? :wink:

10 Mar 2009

I don't see anything wrong with Deecee's comments on this thread... I don't understand what's wrong with someone who is in the business (if that's what he seems to be saying) telling the facts as they actually are - I don't see any reason for the flouncette.

11 Mar 2009

Quote by DeeCee

If and I say IF you have anything to do with the legal side of things, I hope I never get you to represent me.
I would rather cut my wrists.
Now go and put your dummy back in, and your romper suit.
Cos to be honest I am getting tired of your childish behavour, and you moan about people getting pissed off with me? Watch out cos it could be you they are getting pissed off with, with your constant sniping....now pack it in.

oh you do make me lol

have you any comment to make on what I said though vis a vis your over generalizations and innacurracies reference Cherie Blair and lawyers pay?
or how you expect there to be a fair legal system with only prosecution barristers?
or are you just gonna get arsey with me for making a point contrary to your opinion on your thread?
I think T7 made a fair point.
You seem to be the one with the problem here and are clearly angling for a fight despite your pleadings yesterday in a different thread that you are "whiter than white".
Your actions don't seem to match your words.
I think you need to re-read the post that you are referring to....rather than just brown nose KentSwingers 777.
things are not as they seem to be to you. You must again be confused. I didnt portray myself as whiter than white. I just said that some of the content of the thread was sick and that some of you were making points that were pretty unsavoury and more suited to the sites that they have been lifted from.
I was virtually told to fuck off yesterday and mind my own business...and a few more things besides.
but i took on board that this IS a forum and if topics are up for debate , then WHY shouldnt I get involved.
By the way... do u have anything to add to the debate?
I have contributed to the debate, but since you appear not to have read the whole thread yourself or at best have been piously selective in your recollections, it's not surprising that you missed them.
It's quite amusing that you should accuse me of "brown nosing" T7 when you always seem to have your head so far up your own arse sometimes.
But, I'm not here to further contributions to personal invective.
How about alternate view of Cherie Booth - lest we forget that this person's real attributes. I'm sure there are many others we can each find to further our respective views but for the sake of the SH membership at large, I'd suggest you post them to yourself since no-one else appears remotely interested.
However, Senior Judge? don't make me laugh!
The only way she will achieve that is not by ability but by nepotism.
Oh for sure, she has done (continues to do) some very charitable things but she has never forgotten the maxim that charity begins at home... I wonder if all those freebies she came back to the UK with, on which she should have paid personal tax and import duty (like everyone else), ended up in the High Street in MENCAP shops or for the benefit of the poor and needy.
By the way,

Quote by DeeCee
The role of a Defence practitioner isnt as easy, well paid, glamorous as you make out..... i should know!!!!

how would you know?

11 Mar 2009

Quote by GnV
I have contributed to the debate, but since you appear not to have read the whole thread yourself or at best have been piously selective in your recollections, it's not surprising that you missed them.
It's quite amusing that you should accuse me of "brown nosing" T7 when you always seem to have your head so far up your own arse sometimes.
But, I'm not here to further contributions to personal invective.
How about this alternate view of Cherie Booth - lest we forget that this person's real attributes. I'm sure there are many others we can each find to further our respective views but for the sake of the SH membership at large, I'd suggest you post them to yourself since no-one else appears remotely interested.
However, Senior Judge? don't make me laugh!
The only way she will achieve that is not by ability but by nepotism.
Oh for sure, she has done (continues to do) some very charitable things but she has never forgotten the maxim that charity begins at home... I wonder if all those freebies she came back to the UK with, on which she should have paid personal tax and import duty (like everyone else), ended up in the High Street in MENCAP shops or for the benefit of the poor and needy.
By the way,

The role of a Defence practitioner isnt as easy, well paid, glamorous as you make out..... i should know!!!!

how would you know?
With you GNV, for a man of more mature years, you seem to need basic lessons on FACT and OPINION...and deal with critisism of yourself in a more mature manner. There is nothing (apart from your ego) stopping you from listening and taking on board matters of truth and constructive critisism.
Kent was saying she defends scumbags and earns a squillion pounds doing it.
I provided some evidence to counter this and can also talk from years of experience working within the Criminal Justice System......
Does the source you provide confirm the radical claims you make regarding her earnings or the clients she represents?....could you even ever find one?
If you did it would have helped your case. Instead You do provide a "leader" which basically condemns her but doesnt support what Kent is wouldnt be able to adduce any evidence in supportof these these wild rhetorical assumptions by Kent because they fail to be facts.
What you have failed to do is look at the facts that show she really is a credit in some way to her proffession and humanity in general because of what she does to further equality and teach/apply the law of the are using peoples biased , dubiously motivated opinions to form your own opinions.
You discount the good she has done because it suits your case to ignore reality and attack her husband through her. How mature and right is it to do that?
You and Kents diversionary tactics to cover the obvious embarrassment and ego dent you suffer being proven wrong can be clearly seen.
Doubting my integrity wont help.
flounces wont help
insults wont help.
seeking sympathy by playing the victim wont help.
and your unwillingness to submit on a point wont help you will only make you look more desperate.
pardon me if i take your comments from here on in with a pinch of salt......but if you would like to continue I am sure in the fullness of time you might understand that I have been going pretty light on the both of you so far.
Its boring and its tedious but hey, I ve been doing this for years so its in my blood.
personally I come to the cafe to chill out a bit...
maybe you two should do too?

11 Mar 2009

Well, until I read that masterpiece, I never realised just how supercilious, self centred and self indulgent you really are.
But hey, we got confirmation that you are not a lawyer which is contrary to the impression you tried to give earlier, so for me I've achieved my objective for today.
Cheers! :cheers:
You have a nice day now :lol2:

11 Mar 2009

Quote by GnV
But hey, we got confirmation that you are not a lawyer which is contrary to the impression you tried to give earlier, so for me I've achieved my objective for today.
Cheers! :cheers:
You have a nice day now :lol2:

:eeek: :eeek: :eeek:
yeah, i make it up!!!! I am a complete Walter Mitty and no-one should believe a word I say.
I dont know where you get your info from...but you should check your sources for accuracy/bias and motive.
Youre not the first person to have had the floor wiped with them by me and have to resort to making up things about me to save face!!!
Crack on!!! My conscience is clear... even if yours is clouded and jaded (if there is one at all)

11 Mar 2009

Quote by DeeCee

But hey, we got confirmation that you are not a lawyer which is contrary to the impression you tried to give earlier, so for me I've achieved my objective for today.
Cheers! :cheers:
You have a nice day now :lol2:

:eeek: :eeek: :eeek:
yeah, i make it up!!!! I am a complete Walter Mitty and no-one should believe a word I say.
I dont know where you get your info from...but you should check your sources for accuracy/bias and motive.
Youre not the first person to have had the floor wiped with them by me and have to resort to making up things about me to save face!!!
Crack on!!!
grow up
I'm off to do something useful now.
And oh, yes, I think I should have added "self applauding" to the earlier list after all.. :kissmyarse:
If you want to trade insults, take it to pm

11 Mar 2009

Anyway, after that childish intrusion, back to the plot.
I agree with T7 about Govt pension rights. Mostly, the high rise in Council Tax is to prop up curious rights for (now) highly paid officials in local Government.
Where is the justification for that?
Years ago, there was a Council Secretary or some such similar named individual who really did do a days work and was genuinely interested in the provision of cost effective services to the community. Then came along the Labour on a wave of "it can only get better" and all I saw was my bills rising year on year after pensioning off the old guard and installing high powered "executives" whilst the level of services reduced.
In the last Council under which my house and business premises were included, the staffing levels became horrendous which, of course, the local tax payer has to fund.
Pensioners who couldn't afford to pay (because their pensions had been plundered by - sorry, you guessed it, Gordon Brown as Chancellor) were sent to jail.
They were generally self-serving autocrats with grand designs on huge pensions to match those of their bed partners in Westminster.
I don't quite agree with Ben; politicians are extremely dangerous and come the revolution should be called to account alongside bankers.

11 Mar 2009

you know that Cheery Blooth?
that's your mum that is
lp

11 Mar 2009

oooooooooooooooooooooooooh ! :shock:

11 Mar 2009

I like the orange
lp

11 Mar 2009

Quote by __random_orbit__
I like the orange
lp

Lib Dem??????

11 Mar 2009

Quote by DeeCee
I like the orange
lp

Lib Dem??????
Muddle of the rude
lp

18 Apr 2009

gaunty, its a diversion. the government is and has been since 1649, in the pocket of the banker's. the chairman of rbs and any other bank's pension pales into insignificance to the billions of pounds of taxpayers taxes and future taxes that have been committed to bank balance sheets for the next 50 years. the ponzi scheme of valueless derivitives (packaged liar loans) renamed securitised investment vehicles, collaterised dept obligations, credit default swops ad infinitum bullshit was banker driven. now the music has stopped ( fictitous paper inflationary boom ) the bankers get their puppets (muppets) to commit the rest of us to a future of deprivation to keep their masters (userers)in power/wealth. when number ten's spin doctors say gordy has called a meeting of banksters to get them lending again read :- "gordy, we are coming over to your place to tell you how much you are going to give us, spin it how you like ! the bank of england is not the bank of "england". it is a private company of private shareholders. read ur notes.