Robin Cook Dies

Carrera said:

This is the second premature death of a respected public figure in the last few weeks. Robin Cook, the Labour Party politician who resigned his position over the Iraq war, died while taking a walk. He was just 59 years old. Prior to that, Countdown host Richard Whitley also died at only 61.
I thought Robin Cook was about the most sensible, pragmatic left-wing politician we've had in politics recently and the way he resigned over the Iraq war was carried out with dignity and sincerity. What a contrast to Cherie Blair who seems to have her principles tied in with how much money she can squeeze out of human rights cases, before popping off to Washington to give lucrative lectures.
I could also relate far more to Robin Cook than to extremists such as George Galloway and Robert Kilroy Silk. Robin Cook was far more level-headed and restrained but one of the few decent politicians around.

Nobody in America has ever heard of Richard Whitely, or for that matter RKS.
Cherie Booth (Blair) has always been a top class Human Rights Lawyer, and has always earned considerably more than her husband Tony.
Maybe she goes to America to let them know about Human Rights. You're always banging on about Mohammed Ali and his lead in Human Rights issues. You're just a cnut. Old Mrs Bush went to see the war criminal Ariel Sharon the other week on a state visit, and what does she do?
You're the biggest clown on this site.

FredC said:

You're the biggest clown on this site.

That is demonstratably false FredC. There is a fatter clown on this site.

Carrera said:

This is the second premature death of a respected public figure in the last few weeks. Robin Cook, the Labour Party politician who resigned his position over the Iraq war, died while taking a walk. He was just 59 years old. Prior to that, Countdown host Richard Whitley also died at only 61.
I thought Robin Cook was about the most sensible, pragmatic left-wing politician we've had in politics recently and the way he resigned over the Iraq war was carried out with dignity and sincerity. What a contrast to Cherie Blair who seems to have her principles tied in with how much money she can squeeze out of human rights cases, before popping off to Washington to give lucrative lectures.
I could also relate far more to Robin Cook than to extremists such as George Galloway and Robert Kilroy Silk. Robin Cook was far more level-headed and restrained but one of the few decent politicians around.

Cook had his fair share of scandels in his life but i always liked him.....RIP.

Fred, if you've been taken in by the Wicked Witch of the West, you need to get around more. She's simply jumped on the human rights bandwagon to make money and feather her nest.
Answer me this one: Who was it who phoned European politicians prior to the Iraq war, trying to persuade France and Germany to back Blair's support of Bush? Got it in one: The Wicked Witch of the West, that's who.
She likewise defends human rights by championing the cause of Taliban style uniforms in schools, without a thought for the thousands of women who risk being stoned to death for walking about uncovered overseas. So, what's more important, the rights of extremists or the rights of women as a whole?
Robin Cook was a decent, respected politician but Cherie is just in it for the money, in my book.

FredC said:

Nobody in America has ever heard of Richard Whitely, or for that matter RKS.
Cherie Booth (Blair) has always been a top class Human Rights Lawyer, and has always earned considerably more than her husband Tony.
Maybe she goes to America to let them know about Human Rights. You're always banging on about Mohammed Ali and his lead in Human Rights issues. You're just a cnut. Old Mrs Bush went to see the war criminal Ariel Sharon the other week on a state visit, and what does she do?
You're the biggest clown on this site.

For those of you who never heard of Little John, here is what he has to say. Personally I'd actually pay to see this guy go one to one in a TV studio debate with Fred:

"NO DOUBT IF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LONDON BOMBINGS ARE EVER CAPTURED, THE WICKED WITCH & HER MATES IN THE " HUMAN RIGHTS" RACKET WILL BE QUEUENING UP TO DEFEND THEM ON LEGAL AID." 😕

"I have some sympathy with Scotland Yard. If they tried to kick Sheik Rattle 'n' Roll out of the country the "human rights" gang would be all over them, no doubt with the Wicked Witch leading the posse with the scent of a legal aid bounty in her nostrils." 😉

"EXTREMIST CLERICS MUST BE ARRESTED & EITHER INTERNED IF THEY ARE BRITISH CITIZENS OR DEPORTED IF THEY ARE NOT, MOSQUES & WEBSITES WHICH PEDDLE HATE & DEATH & RECRUIT IMPRESSIONABLE YOUNG MEN FOR HOLY WAR MUST BE SHUT DOWN." 😄

"THE TIPTON TALIBAN AFTER BEING CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD TRYING TO KILL BRITISH SOLDIERS ARE GREETED AS CONQUERING HEROES, FETED IN THE LEFT-WING MEDIA & WOOED BY COMPENSATION LAWYERS." 😕

Carrera said:

Fred, if you've been taken in by the Wicked Witch of the West, you need to get around more. She's simply jumped on the human rights bandwagon to make money and feather her nest.
Answer me this one: Who was it who phoned European politicians prior to the Iraq war, trying to persuade France and Germany to back Blair's support of Bush? Got it in one: The Wicked Witch of the West, that's who.
She likewise defends human rights by championing the cause of Taliban style uniforms in schools, without a thought for the thousands of women who risk being stoned to death for walking about uncovered overseas. So, what's more important, the rights of extremists or the rights of women as a whole?
Robin Cook was a decent, respected politician but Cherie is just in it for the money, in my book.

She studied The Human Rights acts because it had to incorporated into our own Judicial System ( and MP's) therefore she was ahead of the game. Good on her I say. Fortunately we live in a fair and just land where the rights of peoples are sacrosanct. On the other hand you seem to live in an ad hoc world of Walter Mitty where you pick up any hat that suits the topic to cover your empty head.
And as for Richard Littlejohn he's a well known clown.

Seems to me like the Cherie brigade are in human rights purely for the money, while discrediting human rights in the process. Human rights is about protecting genuinely vulnerable people, genuine refugees and victims, not providing sancturary to radicals and fanatics.
I'm all for human rights, fair trials, decent wages, free self-expression and sanctity of life. But I think these basic concepts are being underminded by hypocrisy and this may well undo progress made so far in the area.
In my book, if you truly believe in democracy and essential freedoms, you have to be tough enough to defend those values. As it is, ours is seen as a wishy washy society with little backbone and that's a view endorsed by the French, Pakistanis, Saudis and Yanks.
I think LittleJohn goes a bit far but, I confess, he's funny. You can't help but laugh at his frank analysis of some obvious realities. He's like the little kid in the crown who shouts out the King is naked when it's just not the done thing to be so direct.
It was he who pointed out that the Beeb refered to U.S. military as "gunmen" or "U.S. gunmen" while the Taliban were described as "resistance fighters" or "militants". Hence, Bins Broadcasting Bureau.
And with that, Carrera is off on his bike to the mountains to suffer.

FredC said:

She studied The Human Rights acts because it had to incorporated into our own Judicial System ( and MP's) therefore she was ahead of the game. Good on her I say. Fortunately we live in a fair and just land where the rights of peoples are sacrosanct. On the other hand you seem to live in an ad hoc world of Walter Mitty where you pick up any hat that suits the topic to cover your empty head.
And as for Richard Littlejohn he's a well known clown.

Carrera said:

Seems to me like the Cherie brigade are in human rights purely for the money, while discrediting human rights in the process. Human rights is about protecting genuinely vulnerable people, genuine refugees and victims, not providing sancturary to radicals and fanatics.
I'm all for human rights, fair trials, decent wages, free self-expression and sanctity of life. But I think these basic concepts are being underminded by hypocrisy and this may well undo progress made so far in the area.
In my book, if you truly believe in democracy and essential freedoms, you have to be tough enough to defend those values. As it is, ours is seen as a wishy washy society with little backbone and that's a view endorsed by the French, Pakistanis, Saudis and Yanks.
I think LittleJohn goes a bit far but, I confess, he's funny. You can't help but laugh at his frank analysis of some obvious realities. He's like the little kid in the crown who shouts out the King is naked when it's just not the done thing to be so direct.
It was he who pointed out that the Beeb refered to U.S. military as "gunmen" or "U.S. gunmen" while the Taliban were described as "resistance fighters" or "militants". Hence, Bins Broadcasting Bureau.
And with that, Carrera is off on his bike to the mountains to suffer.

You have just unequivically exposed yourself as a mental [censored], in that you cannot distuingish between the Lawful Human Rights Act which applies to members of the EU, and the general term used elsewhere in the world.
The right to reside in this country, or others in the EU, is the right to remain unhindered unless it is transgressed, whereby other legal remedies are in place to adjust the situation.
Re-read your first paragraph.
We do have fair trials, which is something you contradict somewhat, when you call someone a radical without foundation.
Decent wages are dealt with by the minimim wage act from central government.
Well have a holiday, and I hope you get knocked off your bike, then you can have a moan about the Health Service, and you might get transferred to a secure institution with a bit of luck.

This is where the left intelligentsia (devoid of any common sense) have brainwashed the public. Myself, I don't accept the idea that we simply owe itinerant mullahs a living at the expense of war veterans or their families. As Blair said when he cut student educational fees, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Or is there?
And let's bear in mind there's not a single Scots, Welsh or Irish asylum seeker living on benefits in the oil rich Arab world.
I imagine you could ask any American poster on this forum about Clinton cutting welfare for the immigrant population back in 1997 if you think the Yanks are as soft as we are. In the U.S. you have to work hard and pay your way. Neither France, Germany, Spain or Italy pay cash on arrival to radical, itinerant mullahs who basically loathe western democracy.
P.S.
"The cost of running the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office rose from £300 million in 1998-1999 to 1.9 billion in 2003-4.[8] Legal aid costs of £170m a year are additional."

FredC said:

You have just unequivically exposed yourself as a mental [censored], in that you cannot distuingish between the Lawful Human Rights Act which applies to members of the EU, and the general term used elsewhere in the world.
The right to reside in this country, or others in the EU, is the right to remain unhindered unless it is transgressed, whereby other legal remedies are in place to adjust the situation.
Re-read your first paragraph.
We do have fair trials, which is something you contradict somewhat, when you call someone a radical without foundation.
Decent wages are dealt with by the minimim wage act from central government.
Well have a holiday, and I hope you get knocked off your bike, then you can have a moan about the Health Service, and you might get transferred to a secure institution with a bit of luck.

Here is how Andrew Green put it. He's the head of a research think tank. There are 2 balanced web sites that give accurate information and illustrate the other side of the coin (not just the left-wing liberal perspective of things).
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
"It has been known for some time that a number of those arrested on suspicion under the anti-terrorist laws have been asylum seekers. Others have used their status to spread messages of hate.
I know that Middle East governments have been warning us for ten years that many of those seeking asylum in Britain were far more dangerous than we realised. Yet a feeble approach to asylum has been allowed to persist for over a decade.
The case of Mohammed al Masari (the leader of a Saudi opposition movement who fled here in the mid-Nineties) illustrates the point. Only last night, he appeared on our television screens, singing the praises of suicide bombers while also publishing their hideous propaganda on his web-site.
The case of Masari was not alone. The governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and India warned us that we were giving shelter to very dangerous men. However, we were thoroughly complacent, saying that these people were free to do as they wished but if they broke the law, they would be prosecuted.
It can hardly be a surprise that, seeing such prominent Islamist activists getting away with it, others should follow."

FredC said:

You have just unequivically exposed yourself as a mental [censored], in that you cannot distuingish between the Lawful Human Rights Act which applies to members of the EU, and the general term used elsewhere in the world.
The right to reside in this country, or others in the EU, is the right to remain unhindered unless it is transgressed, whereby other legal remedies are in place to adjust the situation.
Re-read your first paragraph.
We do have fair trials, which is something you contradict somewhat, when you call someone a radical without foundation.
Decent wages are dealt with by the minimim wage act from central government.
Well have a holiday, and I hope you get knocked off your bike, then you can have a moan about the Health Service, and you might get transferred to a secure institution with a bit of luck.