That is the headline to this article.
Soldiers are putting their lives on the line everyday.
The supreme court say that Soldiers are not protected by 'Human Rights Laws', but the soldiers DO have the right to have the best equipment and the best protection there is.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Saturday, 6 February 2010
What Planet are these 'Supreme Court' Judges On
The UK Supreme court has decided to unfreeze terrorist's money.
Here is an extract from an article in the Telegraph
In one of its first decisions, our new Supreme Court has decided to lend a helping hand to terrorism. It did so via an under-reported judgment, issued last week, which torpedoed the Government's policy of freezing terrorists' assets.
That policy was the result of implementing UN Security Council Resolutions. No one doubts that one of the best ways of combating terrorism is to make it as difficult as possible for terrorists to get the funds they need to commit mass murder. That's why the Security Council, in the wake of the US embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, and again after September 11, asked all member states to freeze the assets of groups and individuals it identified as being involved in terrorism.
So in their infinite wisdom they are going to give terrorists their money back.
The United Nations, a world body, has asked countries to freeze terrorist assets. Yes the UN doesn't get it right all the time, but cutting the cash flow to terrorists is a good idea.
Another extract;
It is impossible to understand why their lordships think that such a consideration should take precedence over diminishing a clear and present danger to national security. They know what terrorism involves: scores or even hundreds of people injured or killed by bombs meant to murder as many innocents as possible
It has been said before by many people, but i will say it again. Judges need to live in the real world once in a while and find out what real life is about and how, we, the normal people of this country live.
If terrorists get their money and a terrorist incident happens, god forbid, the judges will have blood on their hands.
What's next for the 'supreme court', invite Bin Laden to lunch?
This decision has to be reversed pretty damn quick.
Here is an extract from an article in the Telegraph
In one of its first decisions, our new Supreme Court has decided to lend a helping hand to terrorism. It did so via an under-reported judgment, issued last week, which torpedoed the Government's policy of freezing terrorists' assets.
That policy was the result of implementing UN Security Council Resolutions. No one doubts that one of the best ways of combating terrorism is to make it as difficult as possible for terrorists to get the funds they need to commit mass murder. That's why the Security Council, in the wake of the US embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, and again after September 11, asked all member states to freeze the assets of groups and individuals it identified as being involved in terrorism.
So in their infinite wisdom they are going to give terrorists their money back.
The United Nations, a world body, has asked countries to freeze terrorist assets. Yes the UN doesn't get it right all the time, but cutting the cash flow to terrorists is a good idea.
Another extract;
It is impossible to understand why their lordships think that such a consideration should take precedence over diminishing a clear and present danger to national security. They know what terrorism involves: scores or even hundreds of people injured or killed by bombs meant to murder as many innocents as possible
It has been said before by many people, but i will say it again. Judges need to live in the real world once in a while and find out what real life is about and how, we, the normal people of this country live.
If terrorists get their money and a terrorist incident happens, god forbid, the judges will have blood on their hands.
What's next for the 'supreme court', invite Bin Laden to lunch?
This decision has to be reversed pretty damn quick.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
The Supeme Court
British Banks Win 'Stunning' Victory in Landmark Ruling on Overdraft Fees
High street banks won a 'stunning' victory at the Supreme Court today in a dispute over overdraft fees that lands a blow to thousands of customers who hoped to recoup charges.
That is the headline from the Telegraph today.
This story makes me wonder, is the new Supreme Court free from political interference?
The reason i am asking is that if the banks lost today they would have to pay back £1 billion and would of lost £2.6 billion in lost revenue. Now as we, the tax payer, own some of the banks we would of had to fork out more money to the banks to cover the lost revenue.
Another thing, i was just checking my email before and i don't know if it is just a coincidence, but i received an email from my bank with a change in my terms and conditions.
In the new terms and conditions there is a section about bank charges and how and when they will charge you.
It didn't take them long to send the new terms and conditions out.
Did the banks have prior knowledge of what the supreme court ruling would be?
Or did they have 2 versions of the new terms and conditions ready to send out?
High street banks won a 'stunning' victory at the Supreme Court today in a dispute over overdraft fees that lands a blow to thousands of customers who hoped to recoup charges.
That is the headline from the Telegraph today.
This story makes me wonder, is the new Supreme Court free from political interference?
The reason i am asking is that if the banks lost today they would have to pay back £1 billion and would of lost £2.6 billion in lost revenue. Now as we, the tax payer, own some of the banks we would of had to fork out more money to the banks to cover the lost revenue.
Another thing, i was just checking my email before and i don't know if it is just a coincidence, but i received an email from my bank with a change in my terms and conditions.
In the new terms and conditions there is a section about bank charges and how and when they will charge you.
It didn't take them long to send the new terms and conditions out.
Did the banks have prior knowledge of what the supreme court ruling would be?
Or did they have 2 versions of the new terms and conditions ready to send out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)