badgerx16

You have conflated 2 things, but neither is 'random' nor 'dredged off Wiki', ( it is dredged off the BBC news site ) : (1) the lebensraum comment was a reflection on earlier allusions to the Holocaust, and prompted by your line "The Israelis think they can steal the homes and land of others because you need a bit more space." (2) the 1993 idea, the Oslo accord for a 2-party state, is exactly what the Israelis are proposing NOW ! ( From the linked BBC report : "The Palestinian state would be based in Area A of the West Bank, where Palestinians would have control over security and civilian matters, and Area B, where Palestinians would have control over civilian issues alone." )

Go ahead.

No - the lebensraum comment was ironic. It refers back to the point raised earlier concerning the possibility that the Israelis may have learned a thing or two from the Holocaust.

Does a state have the right to publicly declare that should one of it's neighbours be granted 'non-member' status at the UN it will take action to remove the leader of that neighbour and destabilise it's government ? ( "However, Mr Lieberman was quoted last week by Israeli Channel 10 TV as saying he would ensure that the Palestinian Authority "collapses" if its unilateral UN bid went ahead." Avigdor Lieberman is the Israei Foreign Minister http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20322405 ) As for the two-party state, how manageable does the West Bank look under the proposals on the table ?

Lebensraum ?

So explain the bombing of the King David Hotel.

Sort of reverse TARDIS then ?

Which one ? The Jewish incarnation, the Christian one ( be that Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox ), or the Islamic ?

How many tanks do they need to crush a couple of hundred houses ?

I thought this thread was going to be about this lot :

Or as happened after WW2 - one man's Palestine is another man's Israel.

Why should the threat of a club going into liquidation and having to be expunged from the league cause the FL a problem ? They've done it before.

In terms of UK Law a lot of it only existed in Common Law rather than primary legislation. The 1950 European Convention enabled people to go to Strasbourg to appeal against judgements in the UK, and quite often get them overturned as the European Court was viewed as being the higher authority. The HRAct put in place the framework to enable UK courts to become the principal, and also put the 'Rights' into primary statute. http://www.lawobserver.co.uk/human_rights_2_32.html

Not at all, all we need is legislation that permits us to do it. Assuming, that is, that you wish to continue to operate under British Law ? The Legal Eagles get rich interpreting the rules that Parliament lays down - if there is a loophole it is Parliament's job to close it.

If Teresa May hadn't miscalculated the date of the expiry of his European appeal period in April, he'd have been long gone.

Given the FL's quite clear and public statement regarding the points penalty, what would the other 23 clubs say if they did back down ? ( And as for the query about prospective buyers being put off by the deduction, it's the same condition as when Marcus took over at St Mary's ).

In which case it's crystal clear : " Therefore, as a condition of membership, any new company established to apply for ownership of Portsmouth Football Club's share in The Football League will be required to: 1. Accept a deduction of 10 points in the 2012/13 season;"

Why elect somebody to commission crime ? Surely we should be electing somebody to prevent it ?

If the court accepts they are out of administration, yes. ( but the FL have always twisted their own rules where the skates are concerned ).

About as much as the Qatada case has to do with the EU.

Qatada hasn't been deported because the Home Office have messed up. This is the judgement of a British court.

You are aware that we don't have an empire any more ? Isolationism won't work. This is from a Guardian article : "However, the European convention on human rights is part of our DNA. It is not "someone else's law". It was never imposed on Britain. The UK proposed the creation of the convention at the end of the second world war – largely at the suggestion of Winston Churchill. It was designed to ensure that the atrocities and mass murder committed by totalitarian states before and during the war would never be repeated. The rights contained in the convention can be traced back to Magna Carta and to other laws long established in the UK. Indeed, it has well been said that the convention marked – and continues to mark – "a vital codification of the common law, not its repudiation"." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/nov/21/convention-human-rights-britain-coalition

This is nothing to do with the European Union FFS- it is the European Convention on Human Rights that forms the basis of the Human Rights Act. If you want a debate at least argue over the correct bit of paper.

But there is a difference, the soldier was tried at a military trubunal. I'm not sure about the admissibility of evidence of mental breakdown, etc, in a Court Martial, but I hope that had this been before a civilian judge his mitigating circumstances would have had much more sway.