I agree with comment above. When i looked at the evidence i have to agreed with him. Yes it was a sex party, was it Nazi themed - no not really.
Of course the reason this offends Max so much - and which US readers may not be aware - is that his father is Oswald Mosley - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley - leader of the UK Fascist Party and supporter of Nazism.
Its not just Germany that is touchy about its Nazi past; Max is too.
Now, just because he was formulating a plan to severely cut back the BBC (in favour of giving Sky/New International more say) and then on the same day two respected BBC reporters just happened to completely accidentally, without any hint of malice, refer to him as Jeremy C*nt, does not mean they actually meant to do it.
Even if his middle name should be changed to "The".
Its a VERY British police state, where there are no written rules but a complex social understanding that you sacrifice freedom to know what the hell is really going on for the promise of a health service and a state pension.
Of course, the pension will not be enough for you in your old age but still won't finish you off before the health service does.
My mother would hit me if she read that last sentence.
I do wish that you wouldn't use the term "UK" as in "It's difficult to see how the UK can seriously hope to just stop people from talking about an individual".
Sorry its a minor niggle as it seems to suggest that the people and government agree with the situation. They don't and the Prime Minister has already stated that this is effectively crisis containment PR for the rich (and he should know) with EU legal backing....
Our usual enterprising press have however found ways of letting all and sundry know who is responsible (if you care that is) and i think that the ineffectiveness of the super-injunctions will eventually slow their use.
When people mention the competition in the UK market; they often forget that most (not all - Virgin is an exception) ISP's have to rent the lines from BT anyway. BT is as much a wholesale provider of bandwith as it owns the lines, and most importantly the exchanges, as it is a retail ISP.
As Julian has commented; this is for their fibre customers only - BT Infinity - which is receiving a big marketing push right now.
I'm not at all surprised by this. Ryanair's attitude with customer complaints is to be bullish in the extreme. Just look up "michael o'leary" to see any number of quotes.
Their rule is - when our tickets are £1 a flight - you pay what you get for so why should you be surprised if it goes wrong. Michael O'Leary said he would charge you £1 to use the toilet if he thought you could get away with it. He already charges all passengers a "wheelchair fee" because EU law says he isn't allowed to charge wheelchair users this directly.
Hi - sorry it took me so long to reply. Basically gun ownership in the UK falls into two categories: sport and work. There may be others better than me on this but shotguns can be kept at home (once the police have inspected your house) handguns and rifles cannot.
This is waived if the gun is required for your work - farmers tend to have shotguns for vermin control but there are land managers who need to cull deer who will have rifles.
If you want to target shoot handguns and rifles for sport i believe (citation needed) that these need to be kept at your gun club.
ALL gun ownership is strictly controlled and ownership of a gun means that your name is logged with the Chief of Police for your county/district. Gun ownership for personal protection is not allowed.
I can't comment on US law but i can give you a UK perspective - and I think some of the US readers may have their eyes pop out when you read this...
Trespass is a tort law and relates to both property and the person. However, it is overidden by parliamentary Acts in some cases and goes so far as to influence those acts. If this was in the UK - two statutes would have priority before trespass kicked in.
Strict (unavoidable) liability is applicable to all property owners and makes them liable from the outset for any injury or damage caused to a person or their property whilst on your property or neighbouring land - with or without the landowners permission. Therefore - and this has happened, if a burglar (who is trespassing with intention to hurt) injures themselves you as the landowner are primarily liable for their injuries.
Contractors who operate a site are similarly responsible for securing any site being worked upon - within reason, but they become completely liable for third party injury if the site is not secure and someone can walk on. This case would be considered a walk on.
OK - so in our fictional UK setting the landowner and contractor are now jointly responsible (though how jointly is not set down so that would be a seperate lawsuit as to whom is the most responsible - another win for the lawyers).
When it comes to those that are trespassing in this case this then works under the banner of contributory negligence. The owner/contractor becomes less liable the more negligent the trespasser is.
Got all that? Tie that in with the fact that you cannot be trespassing in the UK if someone has not correctly fenced their property (i.e. your front yard) nor can you excessively defend against intruders (yes that would mean a gun) and it makes this case frankly run-of-the-mill over here.....
My view is that the teenagers weren't doing this to make money. Maybe they were trying to buy recognition. If by buying loads of copies of their album they got front page space on the iTunes store... And by using stolen credit cards pocketed a couple of £1000 at the same time...
Well all I'm saying is its a better business model than "i'll let the record company sort it all out and moan about pirates", despite the obvious (and idiotic) illegality.
A moron in a hurry may be able to see the difference between a school and a dealership but i think many people who saw pictures of the sports team or visited might rightly think that the team is sponsored by Chrysler. I know i might at least expect it, and i know i'm only an idiot. Not like those damn morons.
The greatest irony is because Mandy has stuck his pointy old nose in the bigger news it will be and the greater the public backlash will be. People dislike him that much they will rationally or irrationally oppose anything that he "supports".
Remember this guy was forced to resign *twice* and has been brought back basically to schmooze business types. The fact that he's was brought back to an unelected position by an unelected Prime Minister is a seperate matter i won't rant on.
We're gonna have an election before June next year, so his days are numbered. If people get exercised by this and it remains a "hot topic" it will become important at the election, important enough for the pirate party to steal some votes....
His name is spelt MANDELSON. He is universally disliked in the UK having been thrown out of government twice, and only brought back in by being made a Lord (as no one in the population would vote for him). Check out his background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson
You can see he has a history of spending time with wealthy private individuals and then doing them favours on his return - see "Second Resignation".