andyh wrote:
No, you see this is one of those occasions when, as much as I'm fond of you, I could thump you, quite frankly. They have to be seen to be following the letter of the law. If a few people make a complaint, they'd get away with that kind of response. If it was every other household shouting them out on it, they absolutely could't get away with it.

Yes, the reality is that every other household (and those in between) is not going to do it. But there's no proper reason why they shouldn't - just reactions like the one you posted here, together with folk who, unlike you, have no idea of what's going on around them. And that's why I see little hope.

knobhead wrote:
Its called reality, you might want to take note of it sometime.
Generally speaking you call the cops AFTER a crime has taken place.
You may also want to brush up on political immunity. The cops abide by those rules, not ones you dream up in your head. Otherwise its called wasting police time, which is also mentioned in the rule book they follow.

oioioi wrote: I think the van thing is more effective myself. A plea on the internet has no more value than the trillions of other bytes of chat. The action itself if performed by many, would be the actual effective thing.

Gilly wrote:
See post #62 above.
When you have evidence that someone without political immunity has commited a crime on her majesty's soil then by all means call the cops. Otherwise it defaults to the 'wasting police time' rule.

andyh wrote:
Condescending bullshit. Political immunity me arse. No difference between Hague flouting terror laws and that got who got his Mrs to take the speeding points. They are both fully accountable to the law. Stop helping them by spouting shit that they ain't.

knobhead wrote:
Its quite correct, you might want to check what the law actually says about the politicians behaviour before you go calling the cops.

knobhead wrote:
Well that's all good stuff, but I was kinda referring to endeavouring to rebuild a sense of solidarity among the working class and spark a resurgence of labour agitation and general popular unrest.

knobhead wrote:
Park the van in the garage and it's as ineffective as texting yourself the idea.

I've steadily plodded on with my idea of a day at the Bank of England where everyone empties their bank account and turns up to get them to keep their promise and dish out the gold. I ain't gonna let the fact it hasn't happened stop me hoping it might though.

Anger is an energy, be careful where you point it!

Andy, can you show us the law which states that politicians are immune from prosecution under terror laws? If you can, can you then show us the international laws that protect them from a trip to the international courts?

If you can I'd be greatful because it would open a whole new ground for action.
If you can't pretty please stfu.

dogsmilk wrote:
All worthy and I fully endorse any attempt at building solidarity.

Gilly wrote:
Actually Gilly, your post has won me over a bit. I don't think what's being proposed could ever be taken seriously but, on reflection, I think it can't hurt to stir some shit up,l even if only for discordian purposes.

oioioi wrote:
Maybe the fact that the pound is a fiat currency and not backed by gold might encourage you to give up on that idea

knobhead wrote:
Quite the opposite.

dogsmilk wrote:
Do you know what, Dogsmilk, if someone of your intellectual significance can be won over (a bit) it makes me more hopeful!!!

knobhead wrote:
They're not immune from the international tribunals, they have to be arrested first of course and its not necessarily the job of the british or french police to arrest them unless the law has been broken locally. (See Kissinger)

So the subtle hint here is that you don't report this to the police here but there is someone else you can report it to.

impunitywatch.com/category/syria-watch/

Plenty of ongoing crime there and it is noted and recorded by many though I fail to see how telling the UK cops about it is going to make a difference, especially when BOTH sides involved have been labelled terrorists at some point or other by varying factions involved in some way or other with of course their own ulterior motives, no doubt connected with oil or some other resources to vulture.

If a UK politician was to break a UK contractual obligation that would be a different matter and you could definitely call the cops for that and they would definitely have to chase it up. Thats a completely different scenario than what you have mentioned though, so far you only have evidence that they WISH to arm one particular side who have been called terrorists (and not necessarily terrorists in the eyes of the UK) and that the EU have thus far blocked it.

Sorry Andy but you clearly didnt read the thread I made on here a while ago, in which I posted the relevant sections of uk law and also enough suspicion that Hague had broken that law to warrant him being investigated under uk law.

As I said earlier in this thread, the arming thing is just a new addition. Agreed, until he does ARM them, he can't be held guilty of arming them, but... he doesn't need to have armed them to have contravened the terrorism act. Which of course means there is already grounds for his actions to be investigated.

knobhead wrote:
Where?
A separate thread?

bah, you're putting a big arsed hole in me sock. other thread is called more evidence that ministers are above the law or summat. General section iirc

Gilly wrote:
On second thoughts...I changed my mind

"intellectual significance" If Mrs Dogsmilk saw that, she'd give herself a hernia.

knobhead wrote: