just emailed the link to a few pistol shooting folk.
November 9, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Anonymous
said...
What? No mention of Presumption of Innocence or Habeas Corpus?
Maybe the LibDems have a little list of those they want to nail no matter what....
November 9, 2006 at 1:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Gentlemen, These Liberals are wreckers, they just don't understand how to run a country.
It would be impossible to control the people and to tax them properly.
Throw out this bill! Resist, resist this notion of freedom.
Your future depends on it.
November 9, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
'PUT YOU TO SLEEP DURING LABOUR' I'm going to offer this service.We place you in a drug induced sleep and maintain you there during the period of a Labour Government.For a little extra we'll briefly wake you up if a senior Labourite is convicted of a criminal offence.
The repeal of all our repressive firearms legislation , give us the right to bear arms and the right to use them against muggers/rapists /thieves/burglars. OOPs I forgot we were granted those by the bill of rights, something conveniently ignored by the dishonest , frilly panty wearing sex fiends who claim to represent us.
Has Yates interviewed John Hutton yet? No? Just wondering, you know . . .
November 9, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Anonymous
said...
it's the "right to bear arms according to law", so no mileage there. But note the one clause of the bill they don't ignore - the one that gives MP's parliamentary privilege. Often wondered why that's never been challenged in court as having been overturned by more recent legislation.
November 9, 2006 at 1:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
I put £30 on clegg and somehow got 17/1 (on betfair) some time ago to become leader after mingster. this can't hurt him too much.
November 9, 2006 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous
said...
Wasn't the 1799 act repealed?
Hitchens - don't forget the Right to Arm Bears. Poo kicks ass!
Not radical enough- need a Bill of Rights and a new Great Reform Act, to decrease the number of MP's to stop them sitting around doing nothing but dream up repressive laws.
PS would like the Freedom to defend my home by whatever means, because that freedom was taken by the Law and given to the Police, who are too busy with drunks and paperwork most nights.
November 9, 2006 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous
said...
Wiki say's repealed 1802, reintroduced 1803, abolished 1813, reintoduced again 1842 by a conservative administration that had opposed it in the 1841 election campaign. Always consistent our pols. It's so reassuring.
November 9, 2006 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymong said:
it's the "right to bear arms according to law"
Wrong. The wording is:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
So thats cheeky, trouble causing Catholics out of the picture then. Studies show that when people are allowed to carry weapons crimes against the person fall. Everybody I know wants the right to own and carry guns ,something denied to us by this self perpetuating bunch of clowns who sit in parliament.Gun control is the friend of a tyrant.
November 9, 2006 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous
said...
which could be nicely precised as "according to law". Whichever wording you choose there's no mileage in it.
November 9, 2006 at 2:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971
Sections 63 to 67 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
November 9, 2006 at 2:11 PM
Anonymous
said...
So apart from the fact that Peter Hitchens still won't (legally) be able to shoot at people with a shotgun whilst screaming get orf moi land, (Which of course with no.5 they'll almost be allowed to be on) this is a good idea, yeah?
Are we still supposed to laugh at how they'll never have the power to do it, or is that only when we don't like what they're saying?
November 9, 2006 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
The Government has passed 365 acts and 32,000 Statutory Instruments since 1997, equating to 114,000 pages, or seven full editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
And they only want to scrap 10?!
November 9, 2006 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
John Bull said...
When we get a proper government that introduces sensible gun laws, this useless Labour lot will be the first against the wall.
OK, so he didn't, I just thought I'd save him some time.
November 9, 2006 at 2:37 PM
Anonymous
said...
The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 please
November 9, 2006 at 2:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Maybe there is something to this "the Orange Bookers are taking-over" "
yesterday votes....Paul Holmes defeats Willot for Parliamentary Party Chair role. Evan Harris defeats Huhne as the he English MPs’ representative on the Federal Policy Committee. Not very Orange Bookers wins...
"the idea of 'poo' kicking ass is...disturbing..."
Google "Mr Hanky"
November 9, 2006 at 3:59 PM
Anonymous
said...
All this discussion of Bills of Rights has tempted me to revisit Magna Carta.
"Clause 45 says that the king should only appoint royal officers where they are suitable for the post."
The barons anticipated Blair's government in 1215. Remarkably prescient.
November 9, 2006 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
John Bull will write:
The Magna Carta and so-called "baron's rights" are a huge waste of time and should immediately be consigned to the dung heap of history, aiding at least to help propegate the honest English turnip. This country doesn't want to be governed by Runnymeade, as the honest Saxon yeoman of our land will prove at the next election, when they refuse to vote, and instead execute so-called Anthony Blair, the arch-enemy of England's sweet liberties and ruler of the so-called "Labour Party Government", which is really no more than a... ad nauseum.
Can we take this opportunity to bin the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (aka the "abolition of Parliament") Bill?
November 9, 2006 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
It's a bit rich coming from the party that wants to criminalise parents for smacking their own children. If that isn't the worst kind of state authoritarianism I don't know what is.
November 9, 2006 at 5:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
Dogbreath you fuckwit,
If you can't come up with a worse kind of authoritarianism you are dog-brained too.
Human Rights Act 2000, since its Bliars contribution to posterity. Not to mention it would put a serious dent in Ms Booth's earnings post retirement.
The libdems really have no ambition. Go for the year zero option and repeal every Act and statutory instrument enacted since 1997. Wipe Bliar and his frightful mob from the history books.
A little bird tells me that the most popular repeal-of-illiberal-laws candidate nominated on his site, by a margin of circa 10 to 1 over it's closest rival was in fact The Hunting Act - But deafening silence on that one from liberal freedom-loving Cleggy eh? Can't let the 700+ hours of Parliamentary time and cheap-at-the-price that it took to produce that counterproductive abortion go to waste now can we? - in spite of the fact that he abstained in every single vote on the matter - and there were lots.
Similar to David Lammy's recent 'Icons of England' exercise where Hunting got over 20,000 more votes than its closest rival but was deemed too controversial (embarrasing, politically incorrect - whatever) to be allowed to actually win.
He doesn't give a toss about consultation - it's just window dressing for a display of what HE thinks is good for us - and won't rock the boat with his bunny-hugging party mates.
November 9, 2006 at 10:27 PM
Anonymous
said...
"It's a bit rich coming from the party that wants to criminalise parents for smacking their own children. "
yeah, but you got to admit that that's kinda fun in a pissing-off-the-authoritarian-fools sort of way. Given that the pro-smacking lobby tend to be deeplt illiberal and anti-everything else.
November 10, 2006 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous
said...
that was meant to be "deeply"
November 10, 2006 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous
said...
More fun to issue a license to arm bears
November 10, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous
said...
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out that if David wants to improve the image of the party then an alliance with the Liberals is a good idea.
Menzies is the ONLY party leader NOT tainted with the corruption and disgrace with which the public 'view' government.
The Liberals are actually the biggest elctoral problem for Cameron given they have been RIGHT about civil liberties and the war. Labour are now a political irrelevance in 'general election' context and anyone who votes for them is clearly deluded and cant be swayed.
Campbell is an honourable person by the look of it and will win big at an election given the public have had enough of 'Labour spin politics'.
November 10, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous
said...
"Menzies is the ONLY party leader NOT tainted with the corruption and disgrace with which the public 'view' government."
He's the only party leader who has a donor banged up and they run away from being interviewed about the £2.4 million said donor gave them.
"anyone who votes for them is clearly deluded and cant be swayed."
You mean the Liberal Democrats judging by the delusion in the first quote.
50 comments:
Take it from the above that you still have £5,000 on Clegg being next LibDem leader.
Fantastic stuff.
Ooops, 5 inserted.
Surely Cameron shouldn't support this bill; he should steal it instead and proclaim it as his own policy!
that's the BBC licence fee done for
thanks Guido,
just emailed the link to a few pistol shooting folk.
What?
No mention of Presumption of Innocence or Habeas Corpus?
Maybe the LibDems have a little list of those they want to nail no matter what....
Gentlemen,
These Liberals are wreckers, they just don't understand how to run a country.
It would be impossible to control the people and to tax them properly.
Throw out this bill! Resist, resist this notion of freedom.
Your future depends on it.
'PUT YOU TO SLEEP DURING LABOUR'
I'm going to offer this service.We place you in a drug induced sleep and maintain you there during the period of a Labour Government.For a little extra we'll briefly wake you up if a senior Labourite is convicted of a criminal offence.
a couple of good things on that list that young 'Dave' might like to consider....which I'm sure he is...only I can't hear anything yet....
We're working on the income tax thing.
The repeal of all our repressive firearms legislation , give us the right to bear arms and the right to use them against muggers/rapists /thieves/burglars.
OOPs I forgot we were granted those by the bill of rights, something conveniently ignored by the dishonest , frilly panty wearing sex fiends who claim to represent us.
Has Yates interviewed John Hutton yet? No? Just wondering, you know . . .
it's the "right to bear arms according to law", so no mileage there. But note the one clause of the bill they don't ignore - the one that gives MP's parliamentary privilege. Often wondered why that's never been challenged in court as having been overturned by more recent legislation.
I put £30 on clegg and somehow got 17/1 (on betfair) some time ago to become leader after mingster. this can't hurt him too much.
Wasn't the 1799 act repealed?
Hitchens - don't forget the Right to Arm Bears. Poo kicks ass!
Not radical enough- need a Bill of Rights and a new Great Reform Act, to decrease the number of MP's to stop them sitting around doing nothing but dream up repressive laws.
PS would like the Freedom to defend my home by whatever means, because that freedom was taken by the Law and given to the Police, who are too busy with drunks and paperwork most nights.
Wiki say's repealed 1802, reintroduced 1803, abolished 1813, reintoduced again 1842 by a conservative administration that had opposed it in the 1841 election campaign.
Always consistent our pols. It's so reassuring.
Anonymong said:
it's the "right to bear arms according to law"
Wrong. The wording is:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"
Guido. Humble apologies for the boring post.
dont be humble, just fall on your knees....
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
So thats cheeky, trouble causing Catholics out of the picture then.
Studies show that when people are allowed to carry weapons crimes against the person fall.
Everybody I know wants the right to own and carry guns ,something denied to us by this self perpetuating bunch of clowns who sit in parliament.Gun control is the friend of a tyrant.
which could be nicely precised as "according to law". Whichever wording you choose there's no mileage in it.
Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971
Sections 63 to 67 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
So apart from the fact that Peter Hitchens still won't (legally) be able to shoot at people with a shotgun whilst screaming get orf moi land, (Which of course with no.5 they'll almost be allowed to be on) this is a good idea, yeah?
Are we still supposed to laugh at how they'll never have the power to do it, or is that only when we don't like what they're saying?
The Government has passed 365 acts and 32,000 Statutory Instruments since 1997, equating to 114,000 pages, or seven full editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
And they only want to scrap 10?!
John Bull said...
When we get a proper government that introduces sensible gun laws, this useless Labour lot will be the first against the wall.
OK, so he didn't, I just thought I'd save him some time.
The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 please
"Maybe there is something to this "the Orange Bookers are taking-over" "
yesterday votes....Paul Holmes defeats Willot for Parliamentary Party Chair role.
Evan Harris defeats Huhne as the he English MPs’ representative on the Federal Policy Committee.
Not very Orange Bookers wins...
At 2:42 PM, Anthony Blair said...
The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 please
POST OF THE DAY
Anonymong @ 2:50 PM
Whatever. Nobody knows who these people are or even cares about these committees.
Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971
Sections 63 to 67 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
amen!
don't forget the Right to Arm Bears. Poo kicks ass!
do you mean Pooh? As in Winnie-the-?
the idea of 'poo' kicking ass is...disturbing...
The question is what does illiberal mean?
To the Lib Dems it is a convenient way of labelling anything they don't like.
"Whatever. Nobody knows who these people are or even cares about these committees. "
Nobody knows who Nick Clegg is either or what he would like to repeal
The question is what does illiberal mean?
To the Lib Dems it is a convenient way of labelling anything they don't like.
Which in this case is things which aren't liberal. Which is why they don't like them.
What is the "Right to silence" bill? A bill giving people the right to shut up?
Will the Lib Dems be opposing the detestable "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill"? Would they agree to the disbanding of the Criminal Records Bureau?
Repealing the Immoral and stupid Income Tax is easier and more sensible than you might think.
Let's go to Geonomics.
"the idea of 'poo' kicking ass is...disturbing..."
Google "Mr Hanky"
All this discussion of Bills of Rights has tempted me to revisit Magna Carta.
"Clause 45 says that the king should only appoint royal officers where they are suitable for the post."
The barons anticipated Blair's government in 1215. Remarkably prescient.
John Bull will write:
The Magna Carta and so-called "baron's rights" are a huge waste of time and should immediately be consigned to the dung heap of history, aiding at least to help propegate the honest English turnip. This country doesn't want to be governed by Runnymeade, as the honest Saxon yeoman of our land will prove at the next election, when they refuse to vote, and instead execute so-called Anthony Blair, the arch-enemy of England's sweet liberties and ruler of the so-called "Labour Party Government", which is really no more than a... ad nauseum.
Can we take this opportunity to bin the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (aka the "abolition of Parliament") Bill?
It's a bit rich coming from the party that wants to criminalise parents for smacking their own children. If that isn't the worst kind of state authoritarianism I don't know what is.
Dogbreath you fuckwit,
If you can't come up with a worse kind of authoritarianism you are dog-brained too.
No, I don't support the ban either.
Lots of love,
A Mong.
Human Rights Act 2000, since its Bliars contribution to posterity. Not to mention it would put a serious dent in Ms Booth's earnings post retirement.
The libdems really have no ambition. Go for the year zero option and repeal every Act and statutory instrument enacted since 1997. Wipe Bliar and his frightful mob from the history books.
A little bird tells me that the most popular repeal-of-illiberal-laws candidate nominated on his site, by a margin of circa 10 to 1 over it's closest rival was in fact The Hunting Act - But deafening silence on that one from liberal freedom-loving Cleggy eh? Can't let the 700+ hours of Parliamentary time and cheap-at-the-price that it took to produce that counterproductive abortion go to waste now can we? - in spite of the fact that he abstained in every single vote on the matter - and there were lots.
Similar to David Lammy's recent 'Icons of England' exercise where Hunting got over 20,000 more votes than its closest rival but was deemed too controversial (embarrasing, politically incorrect - whatever) to be allowed to actually win.
He doesn't give a toss about consultation - it's just window dressing for a display of what HE thinks is good for us - and won't rock the boat with his bunny-hugging party mates.
"It's a bit rich coming from the party that wants to criminalise parents for smacking their own children. "
yeah, but you got to admit that that's kinda fun in a pissing-off-the-authoritarian-fools sort of way. Given that the pro-smacking lobby tend to be deeplt illiberal and anti-everything else.
that was meant to be "deeply"
More fun to issue a license to arm bears
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out that if David wants to improve the image of the party then an alliance with the Liberals is a good idea.
Menzies is the ONLY party leader NOT tainted with the corruption and disgrace with which the public 'view' government.
The Liberals are actually the biggest elctoral problem for Cameron given they have been RIGHT about civil liberties and the war. Labour are now a political irrelevance in 'general election' context and anyone who votes for them is clearly deluded and cant be swayed.
Campbell is an honourable person by the look of it and will win big at an election given the public have had enough of 'Labour spin politics'.
"Menzies is the ONLY party leader NOT tainted with the corruption and disgrace with which the public 'view' government."
He's the only party leader who has a donor banged up and they run away from being interviewed about the £2.4 million said donor gave them.
"anyone who votes for them is clearly deluded and cant be swayed."
You mean the Liberal Democrats judging by the delusion in the first quote.