Yes, execution means carrying out the law. So don't try to make it seem that your mastery of English is greater than others. Chances are it isn't. However, explain the relevance of the rest of the statement if it doesn't preclude the death sentence... No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save [viz except when] in the execution [viz carrying out] of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty [vis the death penalty]is provided by law [vis is legislated for]. Deprivation of life is therefore possible if a law carries that sentence.

Actually, the HRA doesn't exclude the possibility of execution: No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. I guess we just don't have any laws that carry the death penalty anymore since High Treason and Piracy execution sentences were repealed. (Incidentally, I don't have a problem with the death penalty)

BP On the whole, I don't disagree with what you're saying about the need for sovereign laws. I personally don't see it as cedeing responsibility to Europe to the extent you obviously do, but then again I am *probably* more pro-European than you and so we could discuss where the line is for ever and still not convince each other. At no point did I say that we were in a lawless society with terrible human rights (small letters) before 1998. What I did say was that if you read what the HRA is actually about, the content isn't what is spread by mass hysteria media. The majority of the content as you've even said yourself "have been enshrined in English and British law for generations - and in some instances ... for centuries !" If I understand it correctly, when the HRA came into force, it effectively repealed all the individual legislation that it encapsulated. Therefore, to repeal this would require another round of legislation to get back to where we were, otherwise slavery would be back.... If you want to argue the case for a reform of the HRA so that Brussels or wherever doesn't have the final say, that's fine. I don't personally think that is necessary, but that's the nature of disagreement on the UK's position in Europe. What I do disagree with quite strongly though is the quite frankly absurd notion that the HRA is a veil from criminals to hide behind. It isn't. Repealing it would have no more effect on the acts of violence seen in recent weeks than, say, debating the finer points of English law on a football messageboard does.

I think you're missing the point. How does the HRA give baddies a licence to commit a crime? Killing people is against the law. Planning a terrorist act is against the law. Someone can't go into a court and say "the Human Rights Act allows me to commit murder". Or is that in the small print?

Did I say it was? However, over the last few hundred years legislation has been introduced that has improved the rights of everyman in the country. The Human Rights Act reinforces and clarifies these rights. To repeal it would require it to be replaced with something else otherwise those milestones for freedom are not law. Is there any part of the above that isn't a sound principle? The problem lies in what people think the HRA is about - spread mainly by misinformation and hysteria by the tabloid press. It is not a law that gives free reign for criminals, terrorists or general evil doers. It reinforces the values that a decent, civilised society should hold dear and makes it perfectly clear that trying to 'use' these rights to one's own ends through atrocities such as July 7th is not the case. A lot of people seem to forget that, or just don't realise it.

A few extracts from the Human Rights Act 1998: RIGHT TO LIFE 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. PROHIBITION OF TORTURE No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR 1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW 1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. RIGHT TO MARRY Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right. Yep, definitely a law worth repealing. Fancy ensuring no one is in slavery, everyone has the freedom to live, everyone has the right to a fair trail, and no one should be tortured illegal. What was the Government and that nasty EU thinking of? But no doubt you'll counter with these rights are being infringed by terrorists. Yes, they are, but this terrible piece of legislation also states: PROHIBITION OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention. Which rather makes the claim it gives free reign to criminal actions rather redundant.

Didn't you have an argument with Eddie a few pages back saying that there were no arrests when Muslims were "celebrating" after 9/11 and when Eddie pointed out that there was no law actually broken, you seemed to suggest that this didn't matter. Just curious, how does that sentiment balance with your latest view of a free society?

Hasn't there been (semi)official comments that the reason Souey didn't sign him was because Carlton Palmer started playing silly beggars at the time and upped the price Stockport wanted for him? And as has been mentioned already, Hughes was here at the time.

Does that mean you won't be doing your usual end of season "throw the kids in, the results don't matter" spiel this year?

Thanks for that, your learned input is as valued as ever. However, as I'm stupid (or at least your little pics say as much, and I defer to your superior status) I might have this wrong so please correct me if this summary as to where we are at isn't accurate. - You've commented that you can pick your religion but not your race. - You've said that being racist is a worse than being anti-semitic. - However, you've not actually said that holding racist views is actually a bad thing. - Similarly and enforced by the pecking order you've established, even more so, you've not actually said that being anti-semitic is wrong. - You've taken exception to people suggesting that your views are extreme right wing. However, you've declined the opportunity to refute this directly by suggesting that after 5,500 posts we should know and you've stated no-one else lays bare their politics. Yet the common assumption is that your views (based on these 5,500 posts) are pretty extreme right wing, but when given the direction opportunity to say otherwise, you decline to do so. How does this reconcile with the fact you have complained to the much derided Mods when there are comments such as philipl's which you suggest misrepresent your views? Therefore, can you answer three simple questions, so as to help clarify your position in the future and perhaps avoid some of these scurrilous tree huggers constantly hounding you: 1. is racism bad? 2. is anti-semitism bad? 3. do you hold what would commonly be viewed as extreme right wing views? And to show that I'm unafraid to lay bare my political views, my answers would be 1. absolutely 2. absolutely 3. absolutely not.

Just curious again. Do you have extreme right wing views? There seems to be a fair few posters who seem to think you have. Perhaps it's time you categorically stated what your views on race, religion and anything the PC brigade are likely to latch onto are, so you can shut them up once and for all? Also, I've not yet received a reply to my question about anti-semitism. To refresh your memory, I asked if this was less an issue because it was a religious problem and not a race one (something I'm glad you clarified in my muddled mind). As you seem happy to dismiss some other posters questions altogether but at least say so, is mine so below contempt you ignore it? Similarly, BluePhil (if you're reading), you've totally ignored by questions about the harbouring of criminals in Muslim communities. To reiterate, I asked if you thought this was more prevalent in Muslim areas than in any other sector of the community. Again, as with TND you seem to have a set of posters who assume they know your views, I think it's only right that you have the opportunity to set the record straight.

Now correct me if I'm mistaken, McCarthyism ended up with a significant number of innocents being hounded because of the belief that any mindset outside of the paranoia was deemed to be wrong. However, the fear and suspicion over the incroachment of Communism was felt very strongly at the time and many saw it as posing "an actual physical threat". No right minded person would harbour a criminal regardless of their crime. I would expect you to contact the police if you witnessed a white man beating up another white man, a Chinese lady, an Asian youth or whoever. What you seem to be suggesting is that the Muslim community is harbouring criminals. Do you think it is more prevalent than in any other community? From what you asaid about disregarding 'moderate' comments, it would seem to be the case, as you don't seem to want to trust people of a particular sector of community. Or is it that you don't trust anyone? Incidentally, I don't think you're the only person on here who truly despairs.

I'll avoid pointing out that the vast majority of the first half of my post was quoting BP.... Thanks for the enlightened explanation on the matter of race vs religion. However, you didn't answer the other question if being anti-semitic carries less weight because it's a religious issue and not a race one. Your learned comment on this subject would be welcomed.

So are you saying Kamy as a "moderate Muslim" should be treated with caution? Do you expect other individuals from other walks of life who think they know someone who holds extreme views to speak to the police on all their suspicions? I don't suppose your surname is McCarthy perchance? Someone on this thread pages back started harping on about Muslims as not being a race and this not being a race issue. Could someone clarify what is a race? Are the Jewish people a race, for example, or is that also just a religion? If it's the latter does anti-semitism hold less weight because of this? Is there an equivalent expression for anti-Muslim sentiment to the irrational levels that some individuals seem to hold? I'm genuinely curious.

Can't a mod have an opinion? If Flopsy was to edit/delete posts he disagreed with that would be an abuse of his mod status. Similarly, if he were to close a thread just because he didn't like the content, that would also be an abuse of his mod status. However, just because Flopsy is criticising another posters stand point is not an abuse of his status. It's not his fault he's just not very articulate.

Self explanatory poll.

As will other groups no doubt. One thing the police chief has asked for is the media not to speculate, and all we tend to get is speculation. In this thread alone, we've had more than one bus explode (fact there was one); we've had a rumour of an attack in Manchester (fact there isn't any); to name but two examples. Terrorism is called terrorism for a reason. It is designed to spread terror. Wild stories and speculation play into the hands of those commiting the atrocities. How long will it be before sick hoax emails start doing the rounds again warning of more attacks? Speaking of which, if you receive one that says "my friend gave an Asian man in a shopping centre his wallet back after he'd dropped it; he thanked him for helping and warned to stay away from X city on X day" DO NOT pass it on. It's a scaremail.

I've just bought my train ticket for West Ham away. Leeds-London return £19. This is about £6 cheaper than I was paying for the same journey a decade ago. Therefore, I confidently predict the journey will be about £15 in 2012. I think the Games coming to Britain is great news and just hope that my friends in London are taking advance bookings for their spare rooms!

And 3 people changed their minds over New York from Rd 1 to Rd2. Only theory is that they really wanted a particular country eliminated and so voted for the country which was least likely to win outright each round. Still, very bizarre.

Fancy an afternoon in Cleethorpes lads?

I'll miss two home games due to holidays. Fulham is one, which is not too much of a loss apart from it being the first Ewood game of the season. The other is ManUre.

I'm guessing we'll get new ones. The club can't bank on everyone having kept last seasons, and haven't asked on renewal if we still have it. Bit of an oversight.

I've just used the internet to renew - obviously my suspicion that they didn't upload the data until this morning was correct. On a side note, I do know one person who'll be a returning season ticket holder this year. So if everyone renews, they'll sell one more at least!

Anyone else tried to renew on-line? According to the system, I don't have a season ticket! ************ EDIT - Or does the online option not start til Tuesday either?

I was merrily up and then merrily down. Thats the problem when its not real money.