erm it was Thatcher who refused to countenance special treatment for terrorist bastards, for her murder was murder. It's generally viewed as having cost lives in the short term, but been a much bigger success in the long term.

I don't think anyone views the PATRIOT act as anything more than an expensive embarrassment.

I am amazed they weren't sectioned under the mental act and stuffed into a lockup hospital for good, banned from talking to the press as they could cause them selves harm.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 31st January 2014, 12:24 AM GMT

If we did, we could have renditioned their arses all the way to Guantanamo Bay and never heard from them ever again.

View original

Also Guantanomo lead to the US being able to try far fewer suspects then they would have liked. You can't legalise torture for some suspects, without legalising it for all. So all that tainted evidence created a humiliating legal limbo.

There's laws for a reason. I mean supposing Labor got into power and banned smoking everywhere and outlawed UKIP, all on the cards.

And then FORREST and UKIP started assassinating labour counsellors and burning down vegetarian shops.

How would you feel about being waterboarded on the Isle of Sheppy because you were caught with a packet of fags.

Quote: sootyj @ 31st January 2014, 12:29 AM GMT

I am amazed they weren't sectioned under the mental act and stuffed into a lockup hospital for good, banned from talking to the press as they could cause them selves harm.

View original

Then you would set the precedent that everyone who killed for a religious cause is mentally unstable and the repercussions from that would be quite serious.

Let's just hope he gets his appeal turned down.

Quote: sootyj @ 31st January 2014, 12:33 AM GMT

There's laws for a reason. I mean supposing Labor got into power and banned smoking everywhere and outlawed UKIP, all on the cards.

View original

That's me not sleeping tonight.

I'm not sure you'd be able to think of a sane defence for committing murder for religious causes.
Unless you're talking about honour killings.
But no I mean that well come on it wouldn't have been hard to prove they were bonkers. I mean you can get sectioned for waving your cock in public these days, if you do it sufficently mentally.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 31st January 2014, 12:36 AM GMT

That's me not sleeping tonight.

View original

You'd be U for UKIP or summat.

Quote: sootyj @ 31st January 2014, 12:38 AM GMT

I mean you can get sectioned for waving your cock in public these days,

View original

Tell me about it !

A huge boulder smashed through a farm in Northern Italy after being dislodged by a landslide.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25975251

Holy moly!

If you look very carefully you'll see Frank Spencer at the top of that picture, saying: "Ooops..."

More girls are applying for university than boys now.
They think it's because girls are more confident because they do much better in almost all subjects at GCSE and a-level.
That makes sense I suppose

You trying to start another BCG sex war Hannah??

Quote: Shandonbelle @ 31st January 2014, 2:09 PM GMT

You trying to start another BCG sex war Hannah??

View original

Ha!

No I'm just reporting on the facts...
Could've been about anything really!

I was only joking but it is a serious issue.
What is slowing boys down??
I don't think either sex is more intelligent than the other and there is always a reason why one doesn't do so well. Are there any teachers on here? They might be able to say what the reason is.

Are there only slightly more girls than boys? If so maybe there's no big mystery, there always has to be one gender applying slightly more than the other, even if it's only by a dozen.
When it was more boys applying no one made a big fuss about it. (That I noticed.)

Quote: zooo @ 31st January 2014, 2:42 PM GMT

Are there only slightly more girls than boys? If so maybe there's no big mystery, there always has to be one gender applying slightly more than the other, even if it's only by a dozen.
When it was more boys applying no one made a big fuss about it. (That I noticed.)

View original

I think it was quite a few thousand, 60 or 70 thousand. And also exam results have been better for girls for a while (apparently). But then I agree that they only seem to tell us who's done better on the news when it's the girls who've done it, so who knows.

Ha, yep.

Well if there is some reason in particular, maybe boys are less likely to want to get into debt for a degree now they've put the costs up? Who knows. It's hard to generalise about a whole gender!