mockney piers

I think that may be hearsay Citizen....or girls aloud hopefully.

Nappyvalley

May make it in at the end, but it's the missus' b'day that night so out for posh nosh. Will look in on way back.

*editted for speeling*

yes i'm in a filthy mood. And while I'm at it, I think we've all felt like that Huguenot, but down that path only this lies...

"Do correct me if I'm wrong. ..I believe the the British dirty war was against terrorists whereas in Spain during that period there was also extreme violence towards members of the public, the era of so-called state-sponsored terrorism." Lovely straw man. Spain's war was against terrorists, unfortunately they hired fucking idiots to do it, who killed civilians. Just because the SAS are good at what they do doesn't make supra-legal murder right, just look at Israel!! "I was pointing to some facts in the recent history" If your going to point out historical 'facts', try and get them right rather than smear, not such a tough task.

Just take out 5 Pascal's wagers. Evens i reckon.

Sadly people wil often agree with the sentiment of Gal, but there is no place for that in the 'due process' that onvisa would have us ditch, which was my original point (i think, *casts mind back*). Some acknowledgement regards your 'democracy' lies would be nice, people might believe you after all and worry about their holidays; leaving alone your tacit acceptance of dirty wars if they have the right person apparently...Bush would have loved you!!

I see you're having a pop at Spain on another thread, the place is far from perfect (see GAL) but then the SAS killed more than a few unarmed terrorists themselves; those in glass houses...

In 1976 Spain wasn't even remotely a democracy, it was still entirely under the old regime, though nominally a monarchy at that time. The transition to democracy (la transici?n) occurred between 1977 when negotiations for the new constitution began (adopted '78) and 1982 when it finally became a fully fledged democracy under the formerly banned PSOE. This was a tricky period that needed clever and sensitive handling thanks to the likes of statesmen like Juan Carlos and Suarez. The ingredients at the time weren't dissimilar to those after the death of Tito and a renewal of war was a very real possibility. I was even in Madrid in 1981 during the rather pathetic attempt at a coup by Tejero in the congress. So I'm a bit lost as to your point. Franco was a good guy or Spain is innately wicked?

I think on the whole we have a police force we can be proud of. You try dealing with the Guardia Civil!! I think that the force as a whole has become overly politicised and overindulged under this government and the whole 'terror' thing has seen officers regularly overstepping their remit, often in quite petty ways. The next government needs to rein back some of that legislation, that's very important. It's also important that officers must be held accountable, but not to such an extent that they can't do their job. Removing numbers and refusing to give information is unacceptable, and I'm glad that the cult off cctv is being turned upon the authorities at the moment, it will mean they will have to be more circumspect in the future which can only be a good thing. However I'll reiterate that on the whole I think they do a pretty good job often under extremely trying circumstances. The US? Don't make me laugh!!

I think on the whole we have a police force we can be proud of. You try dealing with the Guardia Civil!! I think that the force as a whole has become overly politicised and overindulged under this government and the whole 'terror' thing has seen officers regularly overstepping their remit, often in quite petty ways. The next government needs to rein back some of that legislation, that's very important. It's also important that officers must be held accountable, but not to such an extent that they can't do their job. Removing numbers and refusing to give information is unacceptable, and I'm glad that the cult off cctv is being turned upon the authorities at the moment, it will mean they will have to be more circumspect in the future which can only be a good thing. However I'll reiterate that on the whole I think they do a pretty good job often under extremely trying circumstances. The US? Don't make me laugh!!

When they came for Danni Behr I said, she's over there Behind the wardrobe

When they came for Danni Behr I said, she's over there Behind the wardrobe

Ooh, my sister-in-law saw dominic west by london bridge a couple of weeks ago. Apparently something of a dish.

Ooh, my sister-in-law saw dominic west by london bridge a couple of weeks ago. Apparently something of a dish.

yep, I think fire is one of those rites of passage. Bangers, McDonalds straws, genies, hairspray flamethrowers, petrol bombs, all part of the male teenage process.

yep, I think fire is one of those rites of passage. Bangers, McDonalds straws, genies, hairspray flamethrowers, petrol bombs, all part of the male teenage process.

I think our average forum reader can probably grasp that tricky concept for themselves thank you Matthew. Of course the reality is that institutions, particularly powerful ones have a certain inertia and resistance to admitting culpability. I'm positing that 20 years down the line a genuine admission of responsibility and a heartfelt apology is actually achievable and may actually do more than you might think to allow many to move on with their lives. And the problem with this "I don't know but unless the true facts are established questions will remain" is that the idea of "true facts" is a pretty subjective one, just trawl about for '9/11 truthers' to see that. I think that's where Keef's question was trying to get to, where is the line drawn so that people can move on with their lives?

I think our average forum reader can probably grasp that tricky concept for themselves thank you Matthew. Of course the reality is that institutions, particularly powerful ones have a certain inertia and resistance to admitting culpability. I'm positing that 20 years down the line a genuine admission of responsibility and a heartfelt apology is actually achievable and may actually do more than you might think to allow many to move on with their lives. And the problem with this "I don't know but unless the true facts are established questions will remain" is that the idea of "true facts" is a pretty subjective one, just trawl about for '9/11 truthers' to see that. I think that's where Keef's question was trying to get to, where is the line drawn so that people can move on with their lives?

sorry, jtt, I wasn't aiming at your post, proximity was coincidental as I scooped my jaw back into place.

sorry, jtt, I wasn't aiming at your post, proximity was coincidental as I scooped my jaw back into place.

I trust it was apples you were scrumping at the convent?

I trust it was apples you were scrumping at the convent?

"as for inprisonment(sic)(sic) without due process, give me a break" Treble take. You're proposing that due process be scrapped? Well, you've a point, due process is for namby-pamby bleeding heart liberals after all. The police have proved that they never make make mistakes, or ever have anything but the most scrupulous intentions, so who needs courts for goodness sake. We'll soon put a stop to these trustafarian types, and remember if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear!