Once Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrant they effectively commandeered the British police and "justice" system. EU law requires the police to enforce the warrant and requires our court to issue a deportation order regardless of evidence. This would be the case even if the alleged crime was not a crime in Britain.
It makes our extradition treaty with the US look positively fair and just.
UK Government: Our aim for the Olympic site, with better connectivity than anywhere else in the country, is to encourage internet companies to set up offices there in order to create a UK version of Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley (specifically Google): No way dude! Your libel and free speech laws are screwed man! And that Digital Economy Act you voted for last year is designed to destroy the digital economy on behalf on the recording industry. On top of that the EU is determined to undermine any internet company that isn't based there - even going to the extent of state funded research into an EU alternative the "American" internet. Why would be go any where near London or the UK? Everyone that is currently there is thinking of leaving and coming here?
UK Government: Really, oh, maybe we should look at that.
Strange that this sparked a metric vs. imperial debate.
Personally I'd like a base 12 system so fractions still "work". Percentages and base 10 numeric systems fall apart very quickly when doing mental arithmetic.
What you say might have some merit if our libel laws influenced, in any way, the behaviour of the tabliod press. They don't. What our libel laws do is cause the shelving of good reporting because the cost of fighting any potential law suit is not worth the risk.
Reporting the facts as you know them, and then commenting on them, is fraught with danger. Making up a story and then retracting it, and paying compensation, the minute a law suit is mooting is much cheaper than defending a well researched story in the courts.
I absolutely hate it when I have to side with Jason Kitkat, a man I disagree with on pretty much everything but who is also my representative to my local council. Arggghhh!
I have to wonder why you hate England so much. I don't mind that you do, everybody hates the English, but please hate us for the right reasons. All your assumptions in your post appear to be wrong, starting with the part that the Royal familiy live off the income from their land.
Like many rights in the UK freedom of speech was thought so fundamental that it didn't need writing down.
As I understand it this was the position of the Founding Fathers when writing the constitution. There was also concern when drafting the Bill of Rights that only the rights specified would be deemed to exist.
Ironically it is the human rights movement in general that has nicely destroyed that concept by insisting that fundamental and social rights are equal. Social rights (education) have to be written down to have any standing, fundamental right (life, speech) should never have to be "granted" by the state - they simply are (and the state can only take away that right not grant it).
"Has anyone yet laid a trademark claim upon the word green?"
I don't think it is trademarked but accross large parts of Europe they use "blue" to avoid confusion witt (or sugguested endorsement by) pre-existing, non-environmental political parties. Hence the VW "Bluemotion" series of cars.
£1 in every 8 (possibly 7) spent in the UK is spent in Tesco. If there is one company that can afford to experiment with new business models, it is Tesco.
Since the EU is relatively new, not as corrupt as the US
Ha ha, ha ha ha, hahahahahahaha. Ha, ha ha, huh. *cough* Heh. Um...
and the citizens there actually take an interest in government
But are consistently ignored or told to think again whenever they vote the "wrong" way.
However, the rest of what you say does stand up. Especially if you ensure to highlight that ACTA is being pushed by US owned vested interests. Keep banging on about it being written for and by US companies and you're bound to attract their attention.
Are you seriously suggesting this shouldn't be allowed? That once a law has been passed it should not be possible to repeal it? Or maybe you believe the next government should not be able to repeal it? What then the point of changing governments? Why not simply do away with those pesky elections all together?
There is currently a Great Repeal Bill being drafted. The intention being that all the poorly drafted acts or parts of acts that were forced through by the Labour government of the last 13 years are simply revoked. Also included may be acts that are not performing their intended function and acts from before 1997 (where hard cases have resulted in bad laws).
The Tories may support the inclusion of the DEA on the basis that any debate and review of the bill was cut short and it therefore was not subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. As Labour did that a lot it hands the Tories and the Liberals a handy excuse to include acts for repeal that they previously voted for but the other part of the coalition wants repealed. It is Labour's abuse of parliamentary process that will unite the coalition in this case.
We're told that public opinion will be sought so hopefully Nick Clegg (I think he is the lead on this) will read this carefully:
Being an fervent EU supporter we can expect him to ignore the parts that repeal our membership. But, if he is a proper Liberal, as he claims, then the rest should appeal to him.
Those specifically in Crown Countries are required to pay a yearly "TV License" to the Commonwealth which was originally started in the days where Europeans were required to pay a "Radio License" This is not uncommon even to this day. For example, in the UK, a fee of £145.50 (or roughly USD$215) is collected by OfCom for EACH television set. That's the magic of Sky, or NewsCorp's model.
Collected by the BBC for the BBC. Some of this "license fee" (a tax in all but name) does go elsewhere but Sky gets nothing. It would in fact be beneficial to Sky (and, I believe, the public) if it were scrapped. OfCom does not collect or enforce TV licenses it is all done by the BBC by "private" prosecution.
On the post: French National Assembly Approves Internet Censorship Law
France will never be happy with the internet
On the post: On The Arrest Of Julian Assange
Britain's role is cursory at best...
It makes our extradition treaty with the US look positively fair and just.
On the post: How Murdoch's Paywalls Meant Some News It Broke Went Unnoticed & Uncredited
A sign of The Times
On the post: EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
Re:
On the post: UK Plans To Review Copyright Laws (Yet Again), With Eye Towards Fair Use
Silicon Valley (specifically Google): No way dude! Your libel and free speech laws are screwed man! And that Digital Economy Act you voted for last year is designed to destroy the digital economy on behalf on the recording industry. On top of that the EU is determined to undermine any internet company that isn't based there - even going to the extent of state funded research into an EU alternative the "American" internet. Why would be go any where near London or the UK? Everyone that is currently there is thinking of leaving and coming here?
UK Government: Really, oh, maybe we should look at that.
On the post: One Dunkin Donuts Tries To Abolish The Penny... Until Customers Demand It Back
Huh
Personally I'd like a base 12 system so fractions still "work". Percentages and base 10 numeric systems fall apart very quickly when doing mental arithmetic.
On the post: Transportation Secretary Wants To Ban All Driver Talking (Except To Other Passengers)
What about signing along to the radio?
On the post: Libel Cases In The UK Hit A Ten Year High... Just As People Were Declaring Libel Dead In The US
Re: We (sort of ) need those laws
Reporting the facts as you know them, and then commenting on them, is fraught with danger. Making up a story and then retracting it, and paying compensation, the minute a law suit is mooting is much cheaper than defending a well researched story in the courts.
On the post: City Council Claims Copyright Infringement Over One Councillor Posting YouTube Clips Of Council Meetings
This really, really irritates me...
On the post: Runkeeper's Ability To Outrun Nike & Adidas Shows How Big Companies Don't Always Copy & Win
Re: The American Way
On the post: UK Judge Not Impressed By Mass Copyright Pre-Settlement Campaigns
Re: UK First Amendment
As I understand it this was the position of the Founding Fathers when writing the constitution. There was also concern when drafting the Bill of Rights that only the rights specified would be deemed to exist.
Ironically it is the human rights movement in general that has nicely destroyed that concept by insisting that fundamental and social rights are equal. Social rights (education) have to be written down to have any standing, fundamental right (life, speech) should never have to be "granted" by the state - they simply are (and the state can only take away that right not grant it).
On the post: Is Quoting Someone Out Of Context Defamation?
Polititians would have to be exempt...
On the post: UK MPs Questioning Digital Economy Act: IP Address Does Not Identify Individual
Small Point
On the post: If Fashion Copyright Harms So Many, Why Is Congress Pushing For It?
Milan, Paris & London
On the post: Companies Not Rushing To The Patent Office For Accelerated Review Of Green Patents
Re:
I don't think it is trademarked but accross large parts of Europe they use "blue" to avoid confusion witt (or sugguested endorsement by) pre-existing, non-environmental political parties. Hence the VW "Bluemotion" series of cars.
On the post: UK Supermarket Starts Making Its Own Movies
On the post: EU Data Protection Body Points Out That ACTA Violates EU Data Protection Rules
Re: Death of a 1,000 paper cuts ...
Ha ha, ha ha ha, hahahahahahaha. Ha, ha ha, huh. *cough* Heh. Um...
and the citizens there actually take an interest in government
But are consistently ignored or told to think again whenever they vote the "wrong" way.
However, the rest of what you say does stand up. Especially if you ensure to highlight that ACTA is being pushed by US owned vested interests. Keep banging on about it being written for and by US companies and you're bound to attract their attention.
On the post: UK Politicians Looking To Repeal Digital Economy Act
Re:
On the post: UK Politicians Looking To Repeal Digital Economy Act
No parliament may bind another
The Tories may support the inclusion of the DEA on the basis that any debate and review of the bill was cut short and it therefore was not subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. As Labour did that a lot it hands the Tories and the Liberals a handy excuse to include acts for repeal that they previously voted for but the other part of the coalition wants repealed. It is Labour's abuse of parliamentary process that will unite the coalition in this case.
We're told that public opinion will be sought so hopefully Nick Clegg (I think he is the lead on this) will read this carefully:
Great Repeal Bill
Being an fervent EU supporter we can expect him to ignore the parts that repeal our membership. But, if he is a proper Liberal, as he claims, then the rest should appeal to him.
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
Re: Re: Re:
Collected by the BBC for the BBC. Some of this "license fee" (a tax in all but name) does go elsewhere but Sky gets nothing. It would in fact be beneficial to Sky (and, I believe, the public) if it were scrapped. OfCom does not collect or enforce TV licenses it is all done by the BBC by "private" prosecution.