The SNPs parliamentary majority and comfortable lead in opinion polls makes it likely they will pass their Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill this week, once and for all removing government and police responsibility to produce separate reports on sectarian crime. Instead, a range of offenses, some new, some old, will be lumped together, including a myriad of profanities.
Alex Salmond’s government has been reluctant to provide a breakdown on sectarian crime despite being asked to produce them since 2007 and has presided over the destruction of all but last year’s data. Even the release of this data required research and analysis to divine the nature of the crime.
They have also refused to re-collect data from police records, demonstrating shocking arrogance on a subject they have invested enormous amounts of resource elsewhere on. Your last window on sectarian crime under this government, acute though it is, is about to be bricked in.
The Government have also politicised the police in a manner reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s government during the miner’s strike. An Anti-Sectarian Crime unit appeared on the ground, without any reference to churches and community groups most affected by sectarian crime. After the Nottinghill Carnival riots of the 1970s the Metropolitan Police learned painful lessons about how necessary it was to involve community groups and leaders in any action which can be perceived to be focused on any specific section of society.
The leadership of Strathclyde Police, which looks likely to benefit from Scottish Government changes to stage a takeover of the entire Scottish police operation, appears to be, quite literally, 35 years behind their London counterparts, who long ago learned that community engagement comes first.
In the light of how they have served each other’s interests with little regard to the public, this cosy relationship of non-consulting and ambitious number of police officers from Glasgow and Holyrood politicians must be prevented from harvesting control of a combined Scottish force – the biggest prize up for grabs in policing in decades.
The proposed Bill has received almost no support from the football community and faith groups. Repealing it and de-politicising ambitious police officers will surely be one of the key promises of Salmond’s political opponents at the next Scottish Parliament elections, who will at least be able to find a popular rallying call.
275 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- »
South Of Tunis – Read the detail of last weeks ” historic agreement ” and you learn that Euroland has said -Goodbye Keynes / Goodbye Expansionary Fiscal Policy and Hello to tiny structural deficits and balanced budgets..
Yup.
It’s all stick and no carrot.
I predict a riot. (thumbsup)
correction
(man! what’s up wi me the day?)
Cahill wisnae booked
just a foul given
that’s aw
doh !
:(
I see faecal transplants are getting a lot of press just now, but I must say it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
philvisreturns @ 13:23
”And this is what seems to have happened. Cameron isn’t a natural Eurosceptic. He turned up in Brussels prepared to do a deal, with the modest proviso that the City – on which so much British tax revenue, investment, and jobs depends – not be the sacrificial lamb for a deal to save the Euro.”
This new accord had nothing to do with the City – David Cameron basically said you guys are in the poo and the Euro is going down we are going to hold a gun at your head and unless we get our selfish little way for our greedy City buddies we will veto your treaty.
”You can imagine the lip-curling, sneering Gallic outrage if somebody had suggested that we abolish the Common Agricultural Policy that robs the European taxpayer to fatten French farmers, but of course, our continental chums are always much happier to propose that we pay the price of their mistakes. Naturellement”!
Totally agree on the CAP but just like the City of London protectionism it is an irrelevance to the new accord. The lip-curling was due to anger at been blackmailed.
The new accord will hold eurozone members to strict budgetary rules including:
• a cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries’ annual structural deficits
• “automatic consequences” for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP
• a requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised
Now this stuff is all common sense and although it needs to be compulsory for the Eurozone countries it need’nt be for us.
The UK is a side show we should have been negotiating over the last few months over something like this:
We will use best endeavours to ensure we are in-line with the new accord however as a sovereign state with our own currency – Sterling – we will opt out of the automatic consequences and will take requests for revision of our budget as non-statutory recommendations.
”So Cameron did the least that could be expected of him……..In any event, all the nonsense and hunguffry that has been thrown about over the weekend obscures one simple fact – even if David Cameron had caved in and did everything that was demanded of him by people who don’t have our national interests at heart, it wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference to the fate of the Euro.”
Agree on the Euro difficulties, howevah we could have went in there under the radar having already had agreement as above the way Thatcher and Major approached it. Then came out with the limelight on the Franco-German alliance and lived to fight another day with a lot of good will.
David Cameron had a meeting with A Merkel last month ”they have both been pressing for action to stabilise the euro…….” No more pontificating from him now, is anyone going to take anything he says on the Euro as credible after trying to destabilise the agreement for short-term self interest? I think not!
Philvis,
She certainly had none of your squeamishness when it came to other people’s lives.
TBB – do you know if they are looking for donors?
Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo says:
12 December, 2011 at 13:57
Kittoch
if bigdanistheman read out that ultra cack and pro hun poem for his dead mother in law are you saying you wouldn´t be in fits of uncontrollable hysterical laughter ? Laughing at him and not with him I should add. It is so bad it might even wake up the old mother in law. What did the poor biddy do to deserve such a god awful send off ?
Does she deserver better ?
Hail Hail
share
Seriously have a word with yourself. We as a family have been asking ourselves that very question, what did she do to deserve the horrible disease that takes so many. Where did I say that I read the poem? I asked a question about the way the poem was set out & you decided to take it upon yourself to pour scorn all over me & my family
Salmond and Sturgeon are on shaky nails for re-election to their own seats via the same-sex marriage issue…..Sturgeon is in huge need of the Islamic vote on that and she ain’t gonna get it.
The loss of she and Eck would be a body blow to SNP !
:)
por cierto —–
It will mean hard times , high unemployment , reduced welfare benefits, reduced pensions , reduced spending on education , health etc
She was 57 so I wouldn’t really say she was that old
Cosy police and politicians kick sectarianism figures into obscurity for good
1
share
The SNPs parliamentary majority and comfortable lead in opinion polls makes it likely they will pass their Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill this week, once and for all removing government and police responsibility to produce separate reports on sectarian crime. Instead, a range of offenses, some new, some old, will be lumped together, including a myriad of profanities.
Alex Salmond’s government has been reluctant to provide a breakdown on sectarian crime despite being asked to produce them since 2007 and has presided over the destruction of all but last year’s data. Even the release of this data required research and analysis to divine the nature of the crime.
They have also refused to re-collect data from police records, demonstrating shocking arrogance on a subject they have invested enormous amounts of resource elsewhere on. Your last window on sectarian crime under this government, acute though it is, is about to be bricked in.
The Government have also politicised the police in a manner reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s government during the miner’s strike. An Anti-Sectarian Crime unit appeared on the ground, without any reference to churches and community groups most affected by sectarian crime. After the Nottinghill Carnival riots of the 1970s the Metropolitan Police learned painful lessons about how necessary it was to involve community groups and leaders in any action which can be perceived to be focused on any specific section of society.
The leadership of Strathclyde Police, which looks likely to benefit from Scottish Government changes to stage a takeover of the entire Scottish police operation, appears to be, quite literally, 35 years behind their London counterparts, who long ago learned that community engagement comes first.
In the light of how they have served each other’s interests with little regard to the public, this cosy relationship of non-consulting and ambitious number of police officers from Glasgow and Holyrood politicians must be prevented from harvesting control of a combined Scottish force – the biggest prize up for grabs in policing in decades.
The proposed Bill has received almost no support from the football community and faith groups. Repealing it and de-politicising ambitious police officers will surely be one of the key promises of Salmond’s political opponents at the next Scottish Parliament elections, who will at least be able to find a popular rallying call
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I sincerely hope that everyone who voted SNP at the last election is proud of themselves. If you could not see the “let’s get the taigs” legislation coming,then you should be classed alongside the rest of the lunatics who are denied the vote by law.
One of the main reasons Labour lost the previous election was because of their stance on smoking,which alienated their natural support.
They lost a hell of a lot as well by setting up the original inquiry into sectarianism,cos it identified the offenders as,erm,not us!
So,the peepil have spoken,the bastards,to quote a former US President.
And how many on here followed suit?
Having said that,how many will do so again?
Fool me once,etc.
bigdanistheman says:
12 December, 2011 at 14:08
I have an appointment for confession tonight at 7:00 PM
by 7:05 I should be ok again.
Please forgive me my trespasses.
Hail Hail
philvisreturns: 12 December, 2011 at 13:54
“fritzsong – Yes, you’re probably right. After reading your disinterested and impartial perspective on the 1980s I now know that the savage non-stop beatings of the Birmingham 6, the extraction of confessions from the Guildford 4 at gunpoint, the destruction of John Stalker’s career, the deployment of MI5 informers to monitor miners’ leaders were all aberrations.”
“They pretty much were though.
“Unless you think that sort of thing was routine?”
These things are still routine.
The police murdered a man in Tottenham a few months ago and were exposed for lying about the circumstances behind the shooting.
They have also been exposed big time for their attempts at covering up the phone-hacking enquiries due to outrageous levels of corruption among police officers.
Admittedly, the Daily Hate Mail doesn’t cover such topics much.
Chairbhoy – If Merkozy had gotten their way, there would have been an EU-wide transaction tax and other new regulations that would effectively kill off the City of London as a leading financial centre.
If they had no intention of doing this, they would have agreed to Cameron’s modest face-saving request and a deal would have been agreed that included Britain.
The fact that they wouldn’t countenance giving Cameron the small concession he had asked for demonstrates not only their malicious intent re: The City, but puts to bed all this nonsense about Britain being “at the heart of Europe”. We are not and have never been “at the heart of Europe.” Europe’s attitude to us has always been “shut up and give us your money”.
QED.
David Cameron had a meeting with A Merkel last month ”they have both been pressing for action to stabilise the euro…….” No more pontificating from him now, is anyone going to take anything he says on the Euro as credible after trying to destabilise the agreement for short-term self interest? I think not!
Well, it’s not as if our continental chums were listening to him before.
It’s always painful to talk about credibility in relation to our political leaders, but I’d say Dave has – for now – bought himself a little bit more credibility than the ridiculous Sarkozy, or the German Chancellor, Rosa Klebb.
Thank goodness we didn’t join the Euro. Only good thing Gordon Brown ever did. (thumbsup)
Udinese top of Serie A
would be lovely if we defeated them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/tables/4948947/Italian-Serie-A-League-Table.html
Henr1k
Can you explain 2 things-
1. “huns/protestants” in one your posts,what does that mean?
And
2.Scott Brown has only had one good game for Celtic.
Bit confused by both,cheers.
BSR 1234
I’ve got a brick wall if you fancy battering yer head against it.
Waste of time talking to him,he’s always right,and anyone who disagrees is,and I quote,a moron or imbecile.
A few of us,yourself included,have his number,but he can be cute,with the occasional point with which it is hard to disagree. Which makes him sound like a reasonable chappie.
He is far from that.
Steinreignedsupreme says:
12 December, 2011 at 12:49
greenjedi: 12 December, 2011 at 12:21
“I don’t care about Hamill”
I’m guessing that’s because he’s not a Celtic player … by that logic none of our opponents should be criticised regardless of what they do.
As I said before, two guys with a reputation for noising up opponents have an argument and you just want to focus on the Celtic player and apportion all the blame to him despite not knowing the facts.
You should apply for a job in the Scottish media. You’d have no trouble finding work … you wouldn’t even require the funny handshake.
………..
Oh aye, I think its moronic for the Celtic Captain to get involved with the opposition after the game and possibly opening himself up to a suspension and I’m a masonic hun. I don’t give a monkeys how a hearts player (or any team other than Celtic) conducts himself after any match as he does not represent my Club, I’ll leave that to the people who can do something. Brown does and does it poorly IMO.
Steinreignedsupreme – I am not of the opinion that our policemen are angels and saints.
However, I don’t think they are routinely, institutionally, corrupt. They do suffer from similar failings to other parts of the public sector, exacerbated by the power that they wield. (thumbsup)
Awe Naw, new low in trolling, which is a pitiful low anyway. Deleted. I cannot have this type of material on Celtic Quick News. Yellow card.
Paul67,
any government which allows the likes of christine grahame to be an integral part of pushing through a Bill which is so linked to sectarianism (allegedly) despite her alleged anti-catholic thoughts/behaviour, clearly shows a lack of any credibility.
That is allied to the fact that the SNP are using their majority to force it through against almost unanimous opposition to the bill by the rest of the Parliament, despite Alex Salmond claiming that ‘on this issue above all’ he wanted to achieve a consensus across the Parliament!!!
Throw in the mix of faith groups, Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Human Rights Commission and the football community who are also opposed or at least have raised concerns about this Bill and here we see how little the SNP and their police counterparts care about anything other than imposing their will, unwarranted and ill-thought it though it may be.
I fear Scotland for the next few years may well not be an agreeable place for those of us wearing-Green-And-White on matchday!
HAIL! HAIL!
Token
Celtic u17 tomorrow night (Tues) v Partick 730pm (weather permitting, supposed to be wild again) up at Lnnxtn (?)
Celtic u19 v Dunf, Wednesday, KO time TBC
I don’t vote so they won’t get mine and u know if this legislation goes through then salmond will probably lose a lot of the catholic voters.
Philvis and others
For my money I think the Euro will survive but there will doubtless be casualties and the Eurozone will shrink. Regardless the 26 to 1 situation is now a moronic thing. Blaming the French is a very easy thing to do as they are an easy target and most folk will fall behind that line without much encouragement (especially those lovely chaps who read the Sun and the Daily Mail and all the UKIP voters or BNP -lite as I call them) BUT the UK is much more than the City and you know what? I am absolutely sick of politicians queuing up to say “The city, the city, the city”. It really is all they care about and it is 7.5% of the British economy. Cameron protected his buddies and still wants to give a free hand to the banks for business as usual while robbing the pensions of public sector workers.
This is the best analysis I’ve read on the subject from the Economist. I agree when the chap says a veto is about stopping something happen, what Cameron did is called losing. See if you agree.
Britain and the EU
Britain, not leaving but falling out of the EU
Dec 9th 2011, 10:29 by Bagehot
BRITAIN did not walk out of the EU last night. But let there be no doubt about it: we have started falling out.
David Cameron finally did what British prime ministers have threatened in Europe so many times, and used his veto last night in Brussels, my BBC radio told me at dawn this morning. This is an astonishingly dramatic moment, the BBC added: the British prime minister has refused to sign up to a new EU treaty involving all 27 members, because the rest, led by France and Germany, would not grant him the safeguards he sought giving Britain powers to block unwelcome regulation of the City of London.
As a result of Mr Cameron’s veto, the BBC said, 23 other countries have now agreed to seek their own fiscal pact involving deep integration around the tax and spending powers of member governments. Standing on its rights as a member of the current EU treaties, Britain argues that such a pact within a union should not be allowed to use the institutions that legally belong to the 27, such as the European Commission, the European Council or the European Court of Justice. At one point, an EU diplomat informed me in an overnight email, Mr Cameron could be heard arguing with his fellow-leaders that when members of the new club of 23 hold their planned monthly summits, they should not be allowed to use the buildings and meeting rooms of the European Council.
The BBC’s exceedingly well-informed political editor Nick Robinson predicts this will lead to a long series of legal battles and rows with other EU countries, and to calls from gleeful British Eurosceptics to press on and seek a wholesale renegotiation of British relations with Europe (which they will then want put to a referendum, threatening to split the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition).
That stuff about drama and rows is clearly right. But I fear I do not see where Mr Cameron used his veto.
In my version of the English language, when one member of a club uses his veto, he blocks something from happening. Mr Cameron did not stop France, Germany and the other 15 members of the euro zone from going ahead with what they are proposing. He asked for safeguards for financial services and—as had been well trailed in advance—France and Germany said no. That’s not wielding a veto, that’s called losing.
Now, the EU is proposing quite a range of damaging and stupid new rules for financial markets. Anthony Browne, a chief policy aide to the Mayor of London (and key Cameron rival) Boris Johnson has a point when he writes this morning on ConservativeHome that:
Faced with a choice between an EU treaty to save the euro and retaining control of regulation of the City, President Sarkozy decided to retain regulation of the City
But nobody can say they were surprised. The French government has been saying for weeks that it would not allow Britain to have a sweeping opt-out from financial services rules. Only last week, I quoted a pair of French government sources in my column, writing:
France sees a strong Europe as a lever of influence. Disliking the enlarged EU of 27 countries (in which its clout is diluted), France wants to use the euro crisis to deepen integration around a core of countries that use the euro, under the political control of a handful of big national leaders. To comfort French voters, Mr Sarkozy has started talking up euro-zone integration as a shield against globalisation and bullying by financial markets.Today’s unprecedentedly Eurosceptic Conservative Party sees a strong Europe mostly as a threat to Britain’s global leverage. Mr Cameron says he supports deeper integration within the euro zone, as long as Britain does not have to pay, loses no sovereignty and yet is not marginalised. That is not enough for Tory MPs. They want the prime minister to use changes in the EU’s architecture to secure concessions, such as opt-outs from European employment law or EU rules that harm the City of London.French sources call it “totally unacceptable” to allow British banks to set up in deregulated competition just across the Channel. Britain wants rights of oversight over the euro zone, it is said in Paris: well, the euro zone needs oversight over the City of London. If Britain seeks to “profit” from the crisis, then rule changes can be agreed by countries that use the euro, excluding Britain
And a very big part of what happened last night was a reflection of Mr Cameron’s weakness within his own party, following a rebellion over a Europe vote that saw 81 Tory MPs ignore a strict, three-line whip. What happened last night, in addition to a fight to protect the City of London, is that Mr Cameron failed to secure a deal that he felt able to sell to his deeply Eurosceptic party (with two cabinet ministers demanding a referendum on any new treaty in the last few days, and scores of MPs ready to rebel on any EU bill put through the House of Commons).
It is worth being clear about this. Mr Cameron says he refused to sign up because he was defending British national interests in the long-term. In the immediate term, he took the decision to reject a new EU treaty because he was not sure he could get it through the House of Commons.
Having failed, he walked away, empty-handed. Just three other countries walked with him—Hungary, Sweden and the Czech Republic—and one or all of them may yet end up joining the new pact. We are not very far away from a final division of the club with 26 countries on one side, and one on the other.
This moment was both predictable and predicted. Everything dates back to a first meeting between the newly-elected David Cameron and Angela Merkel in Berlin in May 2010. By chance, in my previous role as Charlemagne, I was in the chancellery that day as one of a small group of Brussels correspondents invited for briefings from the German government. Mrs Merkel badly wanted Britain to stay on the inside track of the EU, we learned, fearing that she would find herself alone in the room with France and the Club Med countries. She wanted Britain and others for balance, and was anxious not to push away allies such as Poland who in theory plan to join the euro one day and are desperate to avoid being in an outer core.
Thus Mrs Merkel wanted to push ahead with new treaties to save the euro at the level of all 27 countries. I stayed on to watch Mr Cameron’s meeting and joint press conference, and heard the British prime minister explain that he wished the euro well, but could not commit Britain to any involvement in deeper integration. I wrote this:
Mr Sarkozy dreams of building a new power structure round the 16 euro-zone countries. But Mrs Merkel wants economic policy to be decided by all 27 EU members, precisely because she likes to balance “Club Med” members of the euro zone with more liberal countries, including Britain, Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Poland. Yet David Cameron, the British prime minister, is adamant that deeper economic co-ordination in Europe must affect only the 16. That may be savvy British politics, but it risks pushing Mrs Merkel into France’s arms.
A year and a half later, at some time around 4am last night in Brussels, Mr Cameron pushed Mrs Merkel into the arms of the French. She went along with this, and this was predictable too. In November I wrote a column from Berlin (sorry, last quotation from myself), setting out the German view:
there is frustration in Berlin at what are seen as British double-standards. Mr Cameron tells euro-zone members to do more to save their currency. Yet Britain does not offer to help and demands to be consulted on big decisions, for example on bank recapitalisation. In Brussels Mr Cameron tells the EU to beware of breaking up the single market, and stoutly defends free-trade rules that apply to all. Yet back in London, ministers talk of special opt-outs giving British business low-cost, deregulated membership of the common market. In Berlin the belief is that rewriting single-market rules would lead to many countries demanding more protections—the opposite of what Britain wants. Belgium, for instance, might push for more workers’ rights. Facing a tough re-election fight, Mr Sarkozy last week declared that Europe should not be a “dupe” when it came to global trade, and proposed EU import taxes to help pay for European welfare systems.Germany’s priority is rules establishing unprecedented oversight of euro-zone economies. If Britain asks too high a price for its consent, Germany will reluctantly agree to a new treaty outside the EU system. This, it is expected, would involve more than 17 countries but fewer than 27. Britain would lose its veto
Berlin offered one more, very clear message: that British Eurosceptics were wrong to declare that Britain could become the leader of the 10 countries that do not use the euro, the ten “outs”. There is no club of outs, I was told, and Mr Cameron had a bruising taste of this reality at an October summit when Mr Sarkozy angrily told some of the countries outside the euro that they had no interest in siding with Britain.
What happens now? Well, British Conservative Eurosceptics divide into two broad camps. A more moderate camp have convinced themselves that EU membership is blocking the sweeping supply side reforms that they believe would propel Britain to renewed growth. They think that if Mr Cameron can only shed the influence of hand-wringing Euro-Quislings in the Foreign Office and the Liberal Democrat party, he can play hardball and renegotiate a new, low-cost, low-regulation free-rider membership of the single market.
This moderate camp is guilty, mostly, of excessive optimism.
For a fine summary of this position, look at this week’s Spectator magazine, and its main editorial, headlined: “Leadership, please.”
Published on the summit eve, the leader says:
British Europhiles have long scorned the concept of a ‘two-speed Europe’, but that is, by default, what is likely to emerge from the mess. We will have a first tier bound by fiscal as well as monetary union, smaller than the current eurozone, and second tier which will be increasingly divorced from the Franco-German power axis. Ideally, the second tier should impose minimal regulations and resemble the free trade area we signed up to in 1975.David Cameron is losing an opportunity to assert himself as leader of a wider European alliance. It could be an appealing place: promoting the free movement of goods, people and capital, but with each country retaining sovereignty and the power to set its taxes, prepare its budgets and retain a veto over rules which will be harmful to its national interest.
The Prime Minister is in a position of great strength, if only he would realise it. He is in the position that John Major was in the early 1990s, having lost a disastrous gamble to enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism (another bad idea which this magazine was alone in opposing). Then, it was all too easy to portray Britain as isolated in Europe. Now, there are already ten EU nations outside the eurozone who will play no part in any fiscal union. It is a constituency begging for direction—if only David Cameron would seize his opportunity
This fantasy politics lasted all of 12 hours.
The other Eurosceptic camp are essentially pessimists. A big dose of their pessimism about the flawed initial structures of the single currency has been borne out by events: to have a grown-up debate, this needs admitting. But they are much too gloomy about the single market, which they believe is not worth the cost of Britain’s EU membership. They are much too sanguine, I would add, about the costs of a break-up of the euro (one Tory MP yesterday called for the disorderly break-up of the euro, while John Redwood, a darling of the right and former cabinet minister, today urges an orderly break-up of the currency as soon as possible). This camp thinks that British influence in the EU of 27 is not worth a candle. One red-faced misanthrope, Edward Leigh, yesterday told Mr Cameron not to come back from Brussels waving a piece of paper like Neville Chamberlain. For such Tory MPs, it is always 1938.
They would like Britain, essentially, to be Switzerland with nuclear weapons. I think Britain is bigger, and better than that.
Nor do I think we would be granted the sort of Swiss deal that British Tories yearn for. Switzerland is allowed access to the single market for relatively low cost because it is small. Because Switzerland is small, its absence from the single market table does not fundamentally alter the nature of that market. A walk-out by Britain, the largest free-market minded power in Europe, would change the nature of the single market fundamentally.
I also think that Switzerland’s deal with the EU is not as good as British Eurosceptics think. It is built around accepting large chunks of EU regulation without any say in order to protect Swiss bank secrecy.
Oh yes, the banks. The City of London is very important, and the EU has some bad ideas for regulating it. But I find it hard to cheer the idea that Mr Cameron took an extraordinarily big decision last night about our relations with Europe because he was so convinced he could not win arguments in Brussels about those regulations.
A final thought. If we do end up leaving the EU for the sake of the City of London (a big if) it would be ironic if some of those same banks and hedge funds then turned around and announced they were leaving Britain anyway because euro-zone rules made it impossible to work in London, and so they were off to a combination of Paris, Frankfurt, Zug and Singapore. So sorry old boy, nothing personal.
OK all you hun posters I am ignoring you all from now on so that I can stay in the game.
Hail Hail
South of Tunis.
Yes your right, but that’s exactly the same as what is happening here por cierto.
PHILVIS RETURNS 1241
Me an’ a’
And that comes from the diametrically opposite political opinion.
F them,they are not our friends,never have been,and the sooner we join an equivalent of EFTA,or even NAFTA,the better.
Cheaper fish too,except for THE EXILED TIM!
Cheers Mort/Kittoch,
Will have a wander round after a few glasses of Mulled Vino and see if I can find it in some of the usual Manchester haunts.
Hail Hail
Cameron used his veto, now the rest of Europe will adopt policies the exact same as our coalition government, strange that isn’t it? por cierto.
Just be a civil human being & you can “stay in the game” why do you need an appointment to go to confession?
bigdanistheman says:
12 December, 2011 at 14:28
see my post above
Hail HAil
Joe Filippis Haircut says:
12 December, 2011 at 13:39
Udinese not thro yet
Atletico are thro
its between Udinese and Celtic Glasgow for the remaining money-spinning glamour qualifying place
non c’e una problema
forza the hoops !
Awe Naw
It was a bit like taking a wrecking ball to squash an ant but it did need squashing all the same;)
Thanks Paul67 for putting a stop to that,we are better than that…
Lennon n Mc….Mjallby says:
12 December, 2011 at 14:34
I can only assume that the divorce was messy.
Hail HAil
Udinese have won 9 out of 10 games they have played at home this season with Arsenal the only side to have beaten them at the Stadio Friuli.
Big ask for us to go there and pick up the win, but you never know.
Come on the Celts.
Mort
Some of the postings that have appeared on here in recent weeks are something else.
hun imposters? Probably. Imbeciles? Most definitely!
Anyone got anything Celtic to talk about or will we just keep bashing away at our keyboards talking absolute pash…
Hail! Hail!
philvisreturns says:
12 December, 2011 at 14:19
Steinreignedsupreme – I am not of the opinion that our policemen are angels and saints.
However, I don’t think they are routinely, institutionally, corrupt. They do suffer from similar failings to other parts of the public sector, exacerbated by the power that they wield.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Wow. Just when I think you can’t get any worse – you do!
Fritzsongs list (and I imagine it was just off the top of his head for the purposes of illustrating his point) would be enough to make one think – perhaps this is ‘routine’. The police were alredy inflitrating trade unions and every left wing group they could in the 70’s and 80’s and recent evidence has shown us that they are now infiltrating Environmental Activist groups as well – you may have noticed some pretty high profile cases in recent years!
Very rarely do we get an end game with these infiltrations. There is very rarely a ‘look, we caught these guys about to do some illegal stuff’ followed by a court case and the end of said group. No, what happens is that the police/ MI5 use the infiltration to ‘steer’ these groups, to render them ineffective – how is that not political?
The only people the police seem not to be too bothered about infiltrating are capitalist think tanks – you know the ones, the groups of lobbyists and pressure groups in suits (too posh to protest, and why protest when you can have dinner with anyone in the cabinet or civil service you need to influence any time you like) who drive policy in the UK and indeed in every other developed nation in the world. No police in there to ‘steer’ them or create division and confusion. No siree.
Policing is political. How could it be otherwise?