Rape is a serious crime and it is a huge indictment of the police and prosecution service that so few convictions are obtained, but that is why it is imperative that we get it right when we try to procure this rather than treading on civil liberties in a way which does not actually help with crime.

Must say, I think this guy is barking.

My objection is principled, in that, I believe firmly in certain rights as free individuals and I am seriously concerned that a DNA database is a shift from presumption of innocence to one of guilt, and I cannot support that, as much as I can concede that such a database may help with criminality cases (though at the last time I checked DNA as opposed to other forms of evidence was only responsible for 1 in 15 criminal convictions in cases of serious crime).
On ID cards, I am less concerned in this regard (for we have passports, Nat. Ins. cards etc). I do think it is, however, a waste of money (not just in the cards but in the creation of new bureacracy around them) at a time when money is not readily available, for something the efficacy of which I am unconvinced.

And before anyone says “If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide”, I would argue what about being “Presumed innocent until proven guilty”. Until I am seriously suspected of committing a crime, I do not see why my liberty should be invaded in any way.

Basically, you don’t really believe in workers’ rights and you think union barons still lead the worker class on an anarchistic rampage? Unite did have a ballot, twice, actually and last I heard were having talks into the night to try to and solve the dispute as the you likely well know, so your comparsion is somewhat considerably weakened by these facts. And wasn’t “greed” the whole point of Thatcherism? Oh no that was middle class greed, I do beg your pardon.

“Therein lies your ignorance.”

Go on…

“That shows how little you know and how petty you are.”

Or a reaction formation defence mechanism response to our passionate and undying love for one another, no doubt resulting in the occurrence of some sort of never ending, but strangely erotic, mind game if we ever actually met. Yes…that’s probably it, especially after that “sarcastic” “Much love x” at the end of your writing (which wasn’t really sarcastic at all – classical denial/rationalisation).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/17/unions-attack-democracy-unite-ba

- There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and finding them abhorrent. Your ability to talk in hyperbole and exaggeration is once again unsurpassed.

“A “high possibility that a Torie government will betray Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change” ooohhh thats a fact then. I’d like to know THEIR source? …Incidently its TORY”

- And there was you telling me off for pedantry a few weeks ago.

3)Don’t be churlish Oliver, you raised Maggie to imply she supported a dictator. Otherwise what possible point would their be to make? Oh a former Prime Minister supported a national black leader 20-30 years ago BEFORE he became a genocidal dictator? Alert the press. You raised her to make a pathetic point and it flopped.

- I think you will find, that it was I, not Oliver, who made first mention of Maggie Thatcherr. If you want to have a go at someone for making a statement, at least aim at the correct person. I would argue that it did not really flop because I did not make any sweeping statements related to it. Once again (I do wish you would read things properly because I do so hate repeating myself) I merely stated a fact.

6)”Fact is, the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, or UKIP or any of the others, has been endorsed by a genocidal dictator” Therein lies your ignorance.

- Please explain how it highlight Mr Jackson’s ignorance, or is that, once again, just unsubstantiated dribble.

5)”Obviously you’re the kind of guy who’ll say pretty much anything to get out of trouble” Im in trouble? News to me lol

1) Read almost any publication, watch any news programme and yes talk to anyone in the street and you will find general widespread outrage at the proposed BA strikes and a hostility to the Unite movement. “Abhorrent” might be the wrong word but the suggestion that a majority of people find the BA strikes unjustified and are outraged by the actions of Unite is very true. To give some “weight” to the point can I direct you to a poll published by the Guardian, yes that bastian of left wing politics, that showed 55% of respondents believed that Unite or the Cabin crew themselves were to blame. 27% said the management, 31% said the unions because they had misled their members, 23.9% said the cabin crew were to blame and 17% said all of the above. Now for the Guardian I found that poll pretty shocking. So yes I stand by the point most people are furious with Unite.

2)Im sorry Suzy but “workers asserting their rights” is a romantic notion and you know it. Its like Scargill and the miners – a dilluded insurrectionist forcing the majority of ordinary miners to follow him in to a fight they couldn’t win or they didn’t want to fight. He refused to ballot his members because he knew that less than 50% of the pits were in favour of a strike. Didn’t matter to him – he did it anyway and any one of his own members who refused to be bullied in to a strike and preffered to get out to work were condemned as scabs and class traitors. When really they were honorable men refusing to bow to mob mentality and wanting to put food on their family table. The fact is BA are one of if not the best paid in the industry. They have the kind of perks most other employees in the industry would kill for – I know because I have a friend who works for a rival airline. At a time when their company is in financial trouble they should be pulling behind the management not demanding more off them. It is greed under the guise of “workers rights”. Never confuse the voice and will of the union leadership with the voice and will of the members. Theyre not always one in the same.

3)Don’t be churlish Oliver, you raised Maggie to imply she supported a dictator. Otherwise what possible point would their be to make? Oh a former Prime Minister supported a national black leader 20-30 years ago BEFORE he became a genocidal dictator? Alert the press. You raised her to make a pathetic point and it flopped.

4) A “high possibility that a Torie government will betray Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change” ooohhh thats a fact then. I’d like to know THEIR source? …Incidently its TORY

5)”Obviously you’re the kind of guy who’ll say pretty much anything to get out of trouble” Im in trouble? News to me lol

6)”Fact is, the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, or UKIP or any of the others, has been endorsed by a genocidal dictator” Therein lies your ignorance.

7)”Also, on a side note, becoming involved in a more diverse range of hobbies would be good for you.” That shows how little you know and how petty you are

Much Love x

“Civilised society shouldn’t give this man or his views the time of day. To do so is to legitimise him and to make out as if hes a man whose opinion is worth noting. Thats why the “story” wasn’t even carried on alot of the news channels because everyone can see how ridiculous it is.”

Interesting when compared to this:

“In December, ZimEye columnist Gilbert Bere predicted that there is a high possibility that a Torie government will betray Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change party and enter into a secret deal with Mugabe. These views now seemingly confirmed by Mugabe are also widely believed by many Zimbabweans.”

Obviously you’re the kind of guy who’ll say pretty much anything to get out of trouble or detract the discussion from it’s original indefensible point. Fact is, the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, or UKIP or any of the others, has been endorsed by a genocidal dictator. He chose you.

Also, on a side note, becoming involved in a more diverse range of hobbies would be good for you.

- Ok. Prove it.

“Margaret Thatcher recognised Rhodesias right to independence. She upheld the right of the “colonies” as they then were to determine their own future. Mugabe was, in his day, a “good” leader in tune with his people. She was absolutely right to support their bid for independence and Mugabe at that point had not committed the attrocities he would later commit and therefore her support for him was entirely right and justified. To try to imply that the Mugabe of the 1980’s and the Mugabe of the 2000’s are one in the same is completely wrong. In his day Mugabe was like the Mandela of Rhodesia and had Thatcher not supported him the hypocrites on the left that now slam her for that same support would have slammed her then for not supporting this “brave black man trying to liberate his people”. We could not have known how he would turn out.”

- That is all largely true, but so what? Mugabe in the 80s may have been a ‘good’ leader whereas he is a big ‘bad’ guy in the 00s. I never said anything to support or contradict that. All I said was, that he was supported by Margaret Thatcher, which is a fact.

“Lest we forget which society launched the first political blog at Birmingham Uni and who followed suit”

- Unless it is your own personal achievement, I think this point is personally irrelevant to the conduct of this debate.

“Even Gordon has condemned them (admittedly whilst still taking money from them) so my question is; does BULS have an opinion on the proposed strikes?”

- If i did not know better you would seem to be inferring that Labour should stop accepting money from people with whom it does not agree on every single issue? Interesting precedent to set.
And to be fair, surely it is healthier to have a government which can be critical of its donors rather than one which is cowed by them into agreeing with things it otherwise would not?

And yes bucf did set up the blog first but it’s not like anyone who’s in BULS now was there when that happened and so gives a toss on that issue :p lol! But, “BUCF has led the way on every front.” that’s very debatable.

And Oliver I’m afraid it is you who is being “ridiculous”. Mugabe is NOT endorsing David Cameron per se his motivation is ANYONE BUT LABOUR and if you can’t see that then you’re being pig ignorant. He’d endorse anyone to get rid of Blair or Brown. And even if he were to be actively supporting Cameron he would find soon enough he wouldn’t have a friend in a Conservative led British government so its all a load of old tosh. Civilised society shouldn’t give this man or his views the time of day. To do so is to legitimise him and to make out as if hes a man whose opinion is worth noting. Thats why the “story” wasn’t even carried on alot of the news channels because everyone can see how ridiculous it is.

Also it is interesting to see that this site finds the time to comment on trivial issues such as this but fails to find the time to acknowledge important issues of the day such as the fact your election campaign is being funded by the militant mob known as Unite – an organisation most of the country finds abhorrent. Even Gordon has condemned them (admittedly whilst still taking money from them) so my question is; does BULS have an opinion on the proposed strikes? Or would you rather avoid that one?

I do feel sympathy for Gary MacKinnon for his condition. But, just like double schizophrenic Peter Sutcliffe (and before I am accused of it, I am not trying to suggest that the two are on the same level), Mr McKinnon has been accused of committing a crime.

While I hope that clemency is shown towards Mr McKinnon, who I think was very clearly acting out of naivety rather than malice.
But we need to remember that there are many people in this country who suffer from Aspergers syndrome, who do not violate the law.

It is not a simple black and white case of nasty old America bullying a chap with Special Needs.

I am sure, that in his capacity as Home Secretary Alan Johnson could defend a vulnerable citizen who faces a completely disproportionate punishment that does not fit his so called ‘crime’. Here was an opportunity for Johnson to provide some real backbone, and show that his ‘one of the people’ status doesnt just come from his tough upbringing and background.

Would Chris Grayling over rule this decision?

But it is not really a political point because times change but not as much as who are British allies and enemies. In the words of Lord Palmerstone “This country has no permanent friends or perpetual allies only permanent interests”.

- His refusal to acknowledge Professor Nutt’s views on Class C drugs

- The shameful extradition of British citizen and Asperger’s sufferer Gary McKinnon on trumped up charges of protecting national security.

Phew, dodged a bullet there Al. Otherwise, thoroughly decent bloke and a contender for Labour London Mayor?

I am a male voter and I care passionately about so-called ‘female’ and ’soft’ issues such as health and education, probably more so than the perceived ‘male’ policies like defence and immigration; I vote for the greter good, not for what’s in it for me. But then again I suppose that’s what makes me Labour. When will policy-makers start directing their ideas at the electorate as a whole, maybe including something that would benefit the young for a change? When did we all become so shallow?

“Sex sells! (Unfortunately, we only sell Jeans)” beneath a picture of a half naked man in jeans, or a women with the same jeans and what can veryloosely be described as a ‘top’. :p

As I said I have absolutely no desire to see the Conservatives kicked out of the guild as I believe in pluralism. But the Guild’s independence is an important facet to it that I have no desire to see infringed upon.