Crouchie's Lawyer

Yes kids after marriage is the plan, and as you say, if we dont go soon, it wont happen for ages!

Max holiday I can take. Yes quite, spelling is not one of my forte's! How much extra will this cost? :smt042 Is that a promise? I hope thats a dig at Shane rather than my Mrs! This is the point. I may try and work on her though, only issue is cost. It will be v.v.v.expensive if we both go!

And your a short plastic c*nt

Think that could be Miss (used loosely) Thailand

Centre forward?

I actually cheered when Stoke scored yesterday! Think its funneh that Spuds are doing so sheet. I always want a 'big' team to get relegated and this year could be Spuds year

And waste the best part of £1500 - £2000 sat around not doing much? The whole point is to go and see my mate and see the sights of Oz. I feel going alone in March when he is getting married will result in not seeing much of him and not seeing much of Oz. The alternative being going later in the year or even next year, making sure him & his Mrs gets time off to a) spend time with us and b) show us around Oz!

Germany also has a proper camel

My mate who emigrated to Australia about 5/6 years ago is getting married in March. Myself and my fiance were invited, along with most of my other mates and their other halves. Due to costs, a lot of my other mates cant go, however, my parents have me £1000 of travel vouchers for my 18th which I have had for years now and never got around to using them. The idea has always been to use them for a holiday to Oz. When we were invited, I was in a different job, earning double what I am now and agreed that me and teh Mrs would go. My mate and his Mrs also decided to go. Since then, I have now switched jobs and am not earning as much. My Mrs is not a big fan of flying at the best of times and going to Oz doesnt really appeal to her, however at the time she agreed to it. Now money is tighter, she has suggested I go on my own, saving us more money and saving her the fear of a long a$$ flight! Plus, she doesnt know anyone over there and would feel a little unconfortable. This was fine by me, however, my mate has now said him and his Mrs cant go, as he has a training course for his new job which he cant get out of, which is smack bang in the middle of the wedding. So I would be going on the 3 week break on my own. I only know a couple of Tom's (My mate who is getting married) mates from when they have come over here, however, they will all (presumabley) be at work during the day time while im out there. Ill arrive a week before they tie the knot and leave 2 week after. Obviously the week before will be manic for him with wedding plans and his family visiting too, so I wont be spending a lot of time with him. Again the week after he will be spending with his new Wife, understandably, and his family too so I will feel like a spare part. My dilema is that I dont know if I should still go. Its a lot of money to spend for potentially just sitting around in the background??? Im not a big fan of doing things on my own at the best of times, and dont wanna go to the other side of the world to sit by a pool doing nothing, but I want to go over for my mates wedding! :confused: Ideas?

Ah I see

Ok, what about calling a policeman a kiddy fiddler? Im pretty sure you can be arrested for that? So how is it you can be arrested for calling a police officer a nonce but not the PM?

Sweet, I love sleep so that extra hour will be fully welcomed. I may even set my Mrs' clock an hour wrong so I get the bed to myself for th extra hour! By the time she realises, it will be too late!

I like Germany's earings. She looks like a chavvier version of Jackie from Hollyoaks. If thats Miss Bulgaria, I dont ever wanna go to that country. Panama & Serbia & Montenegro are both blokes FACT

I would 'visit' Paraguay, Norway & Australia. I'd probably spray over Finland too. Although she looks a little spazzy, I probably still would France

The arguement was that speed camera's are not primarily there to reduce crime, rather than raise cash for doughnuts. CCTV in a town centre is not a money making scheme.

This is my point, only I failed to make it in a clear concise way! Cheers Influenced

I wouldnt be too happy about it no, however, I would understand it, and if by encarserating (sp) a member of my family, it meant that someone who had actually commit a terror related crime was detained for long enough to gain enough evidence against them and stopped them commiting the crime then I would have tolerate it. I may hav mis-worded my original point, however as Hatch has said, what I should have possibly said is: Should people who have no regard for Human Life still be protected by these Human Rights laws? And why is it people rally for them getting these rights? I can see its probably more for the rights itself, rather than the person the particular case relates to. However, even if I were so hell bent on defending human rights, I would turn a blind eye to it on cases such as Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden. This is my own personal opinion of course. I think a lot of people have not understood my original point, which is probably half my fault as I didnt word it right, however, I am not going on about your basic human rights in general. I would challenge any person who says they would prefer hundreds of people to be innocently killed in preference to themselves of one of their loved ones being detained for a few weeks innocently.

Why? For having an opinion that differs from yours?

Yes, cheers Hatch. This was meant to be my point but got caught up in my ramblings.

Oh, I agree with this completely. But there are rights and there are rights. The rights, you and I have as a law abiding citizen which seperate us from the likes of Iran and Syria should be and thankfully are, in place. But its the rights of the criminals which I do not agree with. Why should someone who has raped and murdered an innocent child, be given the same rights as an innocent person? And yes I am fully aware that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if it took a few extra days to clear my name, I for one would have no qualms about it.

Completely agree

And to say the growth in CCTV camera's is directly linked to the growth in crime levels is absurd. How about the smacking ban? Kids being able to get away with more things without fear of reprival? Surely this breeds less respect and therefore, could be deemed to be a link to crime increasing? Drugs being more easily available and cheaper too, that not one of the reasons as well? Police being targetted on areas like paperwork FFS, meaning less time on 'the beat'. These all have a hell of a lot more relevance to crime rate increases since the 70's than CCTV does Baj.

Cheers JFP, this is my point exactly.

Hardly the same though. No I do not agree with speed camera's as a money grabbing scheme (which they are) but its not as if these can be classed as being part of a 'big brother state'. Equally, I dont think CCTV camera's (which you find on the high street for example) can be classed as revenue generating.

Feel free to point out where I said indefinatley. I did not say Indefinatley, I just said a little longer. If you are going to have a go at me, then please at least get what Im saying right. I wouldnt want CCTV in my home no, and would disagree with the 'big brother' state if they were to use it against you for every little thing possible, however. In the case of terrorism, where they plan to end the lives of innocent people, if a few extra CCTV camera's here or there, emails being monitored, ID cards or even having to spend a few extra days or a week or so in prison means that it would cut down the chances of something like this happening again then I am for it. You may want to take the 'Look at me, im neutral and have no opinions' view on it and will probably call me a Daily Mail reader for having such a view, however, you ask what the HR people, or even the innocent person locked up for a week longer would prefer, being locked up an extra week or their family being blown up by a terrorist.