GRIMLY FIENDISH

Oh, FFS, I posted a SPOOF news-story.... How about you grow up, and get a sense of humour.. ? -_- The Cardinal's "views" on gay marriage are beyond contemptible and bigoted crap and frankly have no place in this century, which is why I felt he was unworthy of anything other than having the piss taken out of him... Your attempts to try and draw some kind of comparison with Ancient Greece is deeply flawed, women were not permitted to take part in the democratic processes of Ancient Greece, so, hey, yeah, let's be like ancient Greece and deny universal suffrage. Seriously, are you for real? You then argue in one of your posts about marriage being "the unions between men and woman, which enabled children to be born and secured the continuity of our species". Well, doesn't that rather assume that people get married just to "continue the species", should we then prohibit marriage for women or men who aren't capable of continuing the species..? For whatever reason, be it because they're too old to bear children, or they're infertile? I mean, logically, what's the point in a 65-year old couple getting married for example, they're not exactly gonna be "continuing the species" anymore than a gay couple, are they..? There simply is no logical or intellectual argument against gay marriage that actually holds up to close scrutiny, that's the facts here... This has absolutely sod all to do with "reading and research", this is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue. End of story... 50 years ago, twats like him would've been against inter-racial marriage, and come up with all sorts of very clever, but bullshit, reasons as to why it was a "bad thing" for society to try and obfuscate the fact that bigots be bigots, I care not for their honeyed words and their attempts at justification because I can see through them for what they are, control freaks who are losing that control over us and they cant handle it.. And no doubt your 50 years ago self would be arguing in favour of the self-same ignorant crap against inter-racial marriage, and sending off an "Outraged from Tumbridge Wells" type letter to The Times saying "Oh, we cant allow this, what will the offspring be like? They wont know if they're black or white. It's going to lead to what Enoch Powell was talking about. It's un-natural to comingle the races...", blah, blah, blah, f***ing BLAH... because people like you are just so eager to blindly follow some idiot in a cassock or some prick of a politician instead of using their own minds to think for themselves.... It's his OPINION, how the fukk can he possibly speak from any kind of experience of human relationships seeing as how he took a vow celibacy...? Taking a vow of Celibacy is a CHOICE, being gay isn't. The reason why we now dont have any objections to inter-racial marriage, in fact the reason why there is no racial segregation anymore, is because PEOPLE TOOK TO THE STREETS AND FOUGHT FOR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES... CAPEESH!!!! -_- I was brought up a Catholic, and you better believe I know more about the disgusting, hypocritical, evil ideology of the Catholic Church than I want to. Any organisation that covers up institutionalised child abuse has no right to preach anyone on "morality" (and yes, I WILL keep coming back to that fact, because it's the big fundamental reason why the Catholic Church simply has no moral or ethical authority anymore. Well, if they ever really had it to begin with).... People need to be more spiritual and a lot less religious, IMHO, Spirituality leads to a greater understanding so we can be free, religions try to limit our understanding so that we'll never be free....

"Deteriorating Mental state" my arse.. He was reported as being drunk or on drugs... TBH, the video that I saw of him is the sort of behaviour you would see from someone high on PCP or Crystal Meth.. And, frankly, most of the "Evangelicals" that I've seen are just as nuts as the fundies, same old anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti birth control, culty fukkin' crap.... -_- I think making excuses for someone like this is pretty offensive to people who really DO have mental problems.. Is the "pressure" he's under more than the pressure a soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq is under..? So, hey, let's make excuses for the guy who killed 16 Afghan civilians just the other weekend as well then..... <_<

Gotta love a bit of Brooker.... :heart: Igw8fA962X8

ha ahahahaha. Is it very wrong to laugh when a Christian fundamentalist cultist arsehole gets literally caught with his pants down...... :lol: :lol:

Different tack, but related. Here we have an example of precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about in my comment U.S. commander defends moving massacre soldier out of Afghanistan http://www.vancouversun.com/news/commander...5476/story.html KABUL — A senior U.S. commander defended on Thursday moving a U.S. soldier accused of slaughtering 16 Afghan civilians out of Afghanistan to a military detention centre in Kuwait, saying it would help ensure a proper investigation and trial. Furious Afghan civilians and members of parliament have demanded the staff sergeant be tried in Afghanistan over the shooting, one of the worst of its kind since U.S.-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2001 for harbouring al-Qaida leaders. "This is really about being able to ensure that we can execute this investigation and the judicial proceedings fairly and properly," said Lieutenant-General Curtis Scaparrotti, the second most senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the suspect was moved to Kuwait, while NATO said only that the soldier was spirited out of Afghanistan late on Wednesday. Asked about the possible impact on ties with Afghanistan, Scaparrotti said: "We informed the government that we were going to move the individual, and their response was that they understood that. That is what we had done under the protocol that we used throughout in serious incidents." The killings in Kandahar province on Sunday have raised questions about Western strategy in Afghanistan and intensified calls for the withdrawal of foreign combat troops, most of whom are scheduled to pull out by the end of 2014. Relatives of the dead villagers and Afghanistan's parliament demanded the American soldier be tried in Afghanistan under Afghan law, although President Hamid Karzai has called only for an open trial process. "This is against our demands and we strongly condemn the moving of the soldier out of the country," said Shekiba Hashimi, a member of parliament from Kandahar, who is also on the government's investigating team. "If he is not tried and punished in the country, people will rise up against the Americans," Hashimi said, pointing to fury that boiled into deadly riots last month after U.S. soldiers inadvertently burned copies of the Koran. Scaparrotti also said an Afghan man who emerged ablaze from a stolen pickup truck as an aircraft carrying U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta landed at a base in Afghanistan on Wednesday had died from burns suffered in the incident. It was an extraordinary security breach inside a military base in Afghanistan's south and coincided with the beginning of an unannounced two-day visit by the Pentagon chief. The airfield incident and the Kandahar massacre underscored the instability in Afghanistan a decade into an increasingly unpopular war, and are the latest in a series of events that have fuelled anger among Afghans over the foreign presence. The Afghan, a contractor who worked as a translator, had apparently tried to ram the truck into a group of U.S. Marines standing on a runway ramp at Camp Bastion in Helmand province, Scaparrotti said. He told reporters travelling with Panetta that he doubted the man had any idea the U.S. defence chief was arriving at the heavily guarded base. Panetta and his delegation were unharmed. It appeared the contractor had been carrying some kind of container that may have contained fuel. A military dog was let loose on the driver and helped restrain him after he crashed the truck into a ditch, an official said. "Those who were (there) described to me that (there was) a puff of smoke, and then the individual came out engulfed in flames. The security detachment there doused the flames and we took him for medical care," Scaparrotti said. "I personally don't believe that it had any connection with the secretary's arrival," he said. "My personal opinion is yes, that he had an intent to harm, that he tried to hit the people on the ramp." BOMBS, THREATS, PROTEST Panetta is the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Afghanistan since the shooting rampage in Kandahar, which is next to Helmand and the birthplace of the Taliban. He told U.S. troops after he arrived that the massacre must not deter them from their mission to secure Afghanistan ahead of an end-2014 deadline for the withdrawal of most foreign combat forces. Tension has risen sharply since the killings and the burning of copies of the Koran at the main NATO base in the country last month, adding urgency to Panetta's visit. Panetta was to hold talks with President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan leaders. The Taliban have threatened to retaliate for the shootings by beheading U.S. personnel, while insurgents have also attacked Afghan officials investigating the incident. But it is civilians who invariably bear the brunt of surges in violence. On Wednesday, at least nine people were killed in two separate bombings in Kandahar and Helmand provinces. They followed demonstrations on Tuesday in an eastern Afghan city where protesters called on Karzai to reject a strategic pact that would allow U.S. advisers and possibly special forces to remain beyond 2014. NATO leaders gathering in U.S. President Barack Obama's home city of Chicago on May 20-21 will decide the next phase of the planned transition to Afghan forces, which is already under way. In Washington, Obama said after meeting British Prime Minister David Cameron he did not anticipate any sudden change in plans for the pace of withdrawing troops. Obama described the Kandahar massacre as tragic but emphasized at a briefing with Cameron that both nations remained committed to completing the Afghan mission "responsibly". "In terms of pace, I don't anticipate at this stage that we're going to be making any sudden additional changes to the plan that we currently have," Obama said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One rule for the Brits, another for the Yanks..... We hand over Richard O' Dwyer on demand, they spirit out one of theirs to a safe military installation in Kuwait... So, a guy who commits a supposed "crime" in the UK has to be tried in the US for some reason, but a soldier who commits a war crime in Afghanistan is spirited out of the country instead of facing trial and arrest in that country that any other person would given the severity of the crime committed.. Theresa May, how about actually GROWING A FUKKIN PAIR and indefinitely suspending our incredilby one-sided extradition arrangement with the US until this bast*rd is handed back to Afghan authorities for arrest and trial...? Actually, howabout getting rid of our one-sided extradition treaty with the US altogether.......

Theresa May confirms extradition of TVShack founder Richard O'Dwyer http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/13/t...-richard-odwyer The home secretary, Theresa May, has signed an extradition order to send the TVShack founder, Richard O'Dwyer, to the US to stand trial for alleged copyright offences. O'Dwyer, 23, set up the website, which the American authorities claim hosted links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes. May's decision comes as David Cameron arrives in Washington to meet Barack Obama. It is expected that the UK-US extradition agreement and the case of Gary McKinnon, accused or hacking, will be raised on the margins. A Home Office spokesman said May took the decision after "carefully considering all relevant matters". Westminster district magistrates court cleared the way for the Sheffield Hallam University student's extradition in January when it ruled there were no remaining statutory bars to his removal. He could face a maximum sentence of five years in jail in the US, compared with only two years in Britain. O'Dwyer's mother, Julia, from Chesterfield, said he had been "sold down the river". A petition against his extradition has been signed by almost 20,000 people. She said: "Today, yet another British citizen is being sold down the river by the British government. Richard's life – his studies, work opportunities, financial security – is being disrupted, for who knows how long, because the UK government has not introduced the much-needed changes to extradition law." A Home Office spokesman said that the American authorities had alleged that substantive criminal activity in this case had happened in America, and requested his extradition. The case was brought by the US immigration and customs enforcement agency, which claims that TVShack.net earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before a warrant was obtained and the domain name was seized in June 2010. The website was said to have collected and catalogued links to websites containing illegal copies of films, TV programmes and music. The Westminster district judge found the allegations were comparable to offences under British copyright law and it was appropriate for a trial to be held in the US. It is expected that an appeal will be lodged in the high court against both the home secretary's decision and the ruling by the Westminster district judge. O'Dwyer will not be sent to the US immediately. An appeal is likely to lead to a lengthy delay. The case is under the 2003 Extradition Act, which enshrines the UK-US agreement, and which was recently used to send Christopher Tappin, a 65-year-old British businessman, to the US for trial on charges of alleged arms dealing. A decision by the home secretary is also awaited in the case of McKinnon, the alleged computer hacker, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. Julia O'Dwyer said: "The US is coming for the young, the old and the ill, and our government is paving the way. By rights it should make for an interesting conversation between the Obamas and Camerons aboard Air Force One – but I'm not holding my breath. If Richard appears to have committed a crime in this country, then try him in this country." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another Brit sold down the river to maintain the "special relationship" with the US... You know, a "relationship" is supposed to be about give and take, seems to me that we do all the giving and the Yanks do all the taking.. The 2003 Extradition Act is extremely one-sided, and was sold to us by Blair and Co under the caveat-of-the-day back then of "terrorism".. Yeah, right... In the nine cases where this act has applied, only TWO have actually had any connection whatsover to alledged terrorist offences... And, yes, it was a law, a very bad law, brought in under the previous Labour Admin. So, what have the "Coalition" done to re-negotiate things...? Err, nada, zilch, zip, bugger all.... Theresa May just let the Yanks grab Richard O' Dwyer and give him a one-way ticket to the US under COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT laws... Are you shitting me...?? What does that have to do with terrorism...? Or Arms dealing..? Or, really, any kind of serious crime that we would understand, like, for example, murder, racketeering, people trafficking, drugs trafficking..... You, know SERIOUS crime... Amd when we want one of theirs, well, err, nope, the US is under no obligation to hand over any of their citizens in this incredibly one-sided deal... This is an absolutely disgusting ruling, but then, what to expect, it seems like any Government we vote for is always going to be America's little poodles...... "Great" Britain...?? What a joke.....

Miliband spotted at football match after cancelling NHS speech due to illness http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/ma...P=FBCNETTXT9038 Ed Miliband has been forced to clarify why he was spotted at a football match this weekend three hours after he was due to address an NHS rally that he pulled out of due to illness. The Labour leader was set to speak to health professionals and union activists at a planned protest against NHS reforms in Hull at noon on Saturday. His address was scheduled as part of Labour's Drop The Bill campaign against the government's health and social care legislation currently making its passage through parliament. Miliband pulled out of his appearance on Friday, complaining of illness. The event was later cancelled. Questions were raised after he was spotted on the Saturday attending the Championship clash between Hull City and Ipswich Town, which kicked off at 3pm. Miliband explained that he had been sick at the time he made the cancellation. Speaking at a press conference earlier on Monday, Miliband joked: "It's the first time I've been accused of putting football above the NHS." He went on: "I was not well on Friday so we said I wasn't going to be at the rally. The rally was then cancelled. I kept a long-standing engagement on the Saturday." Miliband was pictured at the KC Stadium alongside the Hull City chairman, Assem Allam, whose team drew 2-2. The opposition leader normally counts himself a fan of Hull City's Yorkshire rivals Leeds United. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What an absolute TIT.... Even taking him at his word, you still wouldn't be DUMB enough to cry off something due to illness and then go off to a football match, most people I think would have the sense to watch the game on TV at home and then the accusation wouldn't even arise.. It just doesn't LOOK good, does it..? We have Ed Miliband hob-nobbing at a football match instead of being at an event that he SHOULD be at related to opposing the NHS reforms... And while he's at this match, we have the Lib Dumbs basically voting away the future of the NHS... This then looks DOUBLY bad for Miliband... Frankly, I question his whole fitness to be leader of the opposition, it just seems to me that when there's something really importand "Mr Ed" is just nowhere, he's got nothing.. Cameron and Clegg are DESPISED by the country at large, the leader of the opposition should be riding high in the polls, and yet "Mr Ed" isn't... Why is that...? It's clearly because even though people might detest Cameron and Clegg, they certainly dont think very much of "Mr Ed" either... I seriously reckon it's time for Labour to think again..... And not just on a new leader, they need to re-examine their whole approach.... No one wants to hear the "New Labour" crap anymore, we want our REAL Labour Party back....

Indeed...

Dude, it's not like London Underground dont go on strike.... :lol: :lol: In fact, there could be another strike coming up soon....

US soldier kills Afghan civilians in Kandahar http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17330205 A US soldier in Afghanistan opened fire on civilians after walking off his base in the southern province of Kandahar. Provincial governor Tooryalai Weesa told the BBC 10 people had died and five were wounded in the shooting. The soldier is reported to have suffered a nervous breakdown before the attack. He has since surrended himself to the US military authorities. Nato said US and Afghan officials were working together to investigate the "deeply regrettable incident". Local tribal leaders said women, children and men were among the dead in Panjwai district. Protests over the attack have broken out in Panjwai district, and travel to the area should be avoided, the US embassy in Kabul has said. High tensions The soldier walked off the base at around 03:00 after suffering what has been described as a nervous breakdown, our correspondent says. He then opened fire on civilians before handing himself over to the US military authorities. The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said in a statement that US officials in Afghanistan would work with their Afghan counterparts to investigate what happened. "This is a deeply regrettable incident and we extend our thoughts and concerns to the families involved," Isaf added. The incident comes as anti-American sentiment runs high in Afghanistan following the burning of copies of the Koran by US soldiers at a Nato base last month. US officials apologised, but the incident sparked a series of protests and attacks that killed at least 30 people and six US troops. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am disgusted by this piece of so-called "journalism".... I've heard of "embedded" journalism, but this is more "in bed with the military" journalism... Twice in this report, there is reference made to a "nervous breakdown", but nowhere is either the source for this claim offered, nor is there any kind of expert evidence to back this claim up, all we get is some vague reference to a "correspondent". Why is it even mentioned..? I think it's pretty obvious, it is a deliberate attempt to play down this incident and garner sympathy for the military rather than us react with the requisite horror that an incident like this should provoke. I mean, we all saw what happened in Utoya last year, how is this essentially any different..? Both involve what are likely mentally disturbed individuals with guns killing innocent people. Bottom line. That is the truth, and that is how this incident should be reported, saying someone has a "nervous breakdown" is obviously put in to invoke sympathy for the perpetrator of the offence, the words are clearly chosen in that way as opposed to saying something like "mentally disturbed" or "mentally unbalanced", if THOSE words are chosen, then we're likely to feel significantly less sympathy for the person... Saying someone had a "nervous breakdown" is designed clearly to create some kind of defence, we think "oh, he had a nervous breakdown, poor guy, he'd never have done that normally". Anyone else committing an offence like this would be described as a "nutter" or a "maniac" by the media. Yes, soldiers are under pressure, but ordinary people can snap under certain circumstances too, what makes their mental problems worthy of more sympathy than anyone else's... One could argue that this is "sloppy journalism", but I dont think it is. I think it's deliberate, I dont for one minute believe these very smart and intelligent individuals who work at the BBC and who have degrees coming out of their ears are in any way committing "sloppy journalism", I think they're committing propaganda. They know exactly what they're doing and they know how this could play out.... This is BAD journalism, not "sloppy", it's just plain BAD, and not only that, by not treating this incident with the requisite gravity it means that you're direclty playing into the hands of muslim extremists who now have even more ammunition to say that the West are murderers and dont care about muslims being killed by the military..... But this is in my humble opinion of course....

Not just Russia though, France, Germany, Switzerland, all have vastly superior rail networks.. Travelling by rail through Continental Europe is a veritable joy compared to travelling by rail in the UK, as is the Paris Metro in comparison to London Underground..

Nope, I dont agree with that. I think that it is entirely reasonable to compare Rail travel here to Rail travel in Europe, and the fact is, compared to European countries which are publically owned and managed, we are getting an indescribably piss-poor service, and no just in the EU, Russia's public rail service is vastly superior to ours.. In fact Russia's entire public transport network absolutely shames us....

Yeah, I'd be more impressed if the Govt started a "Bring Rail back into public ownership review" to be perfectly honest..... -_-

Pretty much how I feel... I look at that picture and I just think "fukkin' morons". This is not how genuine "charity workers" act. They dont pick sides in a war, they tend to go in and just help the victims. And frankly, the Ugandan Govt is extremely dodgy which is committing its own human rights abuses. I cant support them either...

I'm with Rooney on this. Invisible Children are clearly a very shady organisation and we really have to question their motives.. Aid should come without strings attached. Kony is indeed a vile, vile human being (much like Saddam Hussein), but that doesn't mean to say that I support Invisible Children or their rather dubious ideology... Too many people are looking at this far too uncritically,and just lending support unquestioningly without looking at the big picture, one almost certainly has to ask serious questions of the Ugandan Govt as well. Let's bear in mind here, the Ugandan Govt have been dangerously close to signing off on a law which declares a death sentence on homosexuals. http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/03/07/...king-questions/ http://jezebel.com/5891269/think-twice-bef...dium=socialflow

I cant believe the clown actually has the gall to compare gay marriage to slavery.... What an utter tool.... To be honest, I think that this Spoof article on the Newsthump website issues the right amount of contempt this idiot, and the Catholic Church itself, deserves.... Dress-wearing 73 year-old unmarried celibate man vehemently supports thing he has no experience of http://newsthump.com/2012/03/04/dress-wear...-experience-of/ The most senior Roman Catholic cleric in Britain, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has spoken out against gay marriage, claiming that just because he doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about shouldn’t stop him talking to everyone about it. O’Brien claimed that gay marriage would deprive children of a traditional upbringing which should include a mother, a father, and a shady old man who touches them in church. He told the Sunday Telegraph, “What’s important here is that we think of the children. No-one wants to see unhappy kids – particularly not priests. Crying kids are desperately unattractive.” ( :lol: :lol: Woah, talk about light the blue touch paper with that one....) “Plus, any child brought up in a happy loving household is likely to be harder to prey on, even if that household is a gay one.” “Gay marriage is an unknown quantity to the Catholic Church, so who knows what effect it will have on our ability to abuse children – it’s probably better for all concerned if we just leave it well alone.” Church officials have backed O’Brien’s statement, claiming that having a pointy hat and a big gold chair means that their two-thousand year-old opinions on the modern world are incredibly important. A Catholic spokesperson said, “If we let people live the sorts of lives they want to, which make them happy and don’t affect anyone else, then what role does the church have left in society?” “Before you know it, the collection plates we send round to parishioners at mass will be empty and we might start having to sell off our billions in assets.” “This is the slippery slope towards the church becoming obsolete – so of course we’re against it.” :lol: :lol: :lol:

UPDATE... And here we have the very reason why "Workfare" must absolutely be resisted.... My job was replaced by a workfare placement With the number of work experience placements rising, are we really to believe that there are no actual job vacancies? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...P=FBCNETTXT9038 Recently, I applied for a part-time customer service position in a local supermarket in the hope of earning some extra cash while studying for my A-levels. I was soon contacted to arrange a date for an interview. I was nervous, excited and worried – I, like many people, have a number of commitments and extracurricular activities, but I understood that working and earning some money would have to take priority over them. How could I complain? After almost two years of relentlessly handing out CVs and application forms, this was the closest I had ever got to employment. A day after the interview was arranged, I received another call to inform me that a recruitment ban had been put in place at the store and they were no longer hiring. Despite my frustration, I wasn't all that surprised. With this supermarket having originally been named as one of the prime leaders in the government's "work experience" scheme, why on earth would they hire me for a permanent position when they can sift through all the eager, cheap young labour being filtered through the system? Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne said on the BBC's Daily Politics show that workfare was designed to combat a "something for nothing" culture in our society. However, the major flaw in this argument is that major corporations are getting exactly what they want for nothing. Some of them claim that they may end up paying work experience placements, but this will never amount to the full wage of an employee contract. Everyone can agree that work experience and training are important and fulfilling, but they should not be to the benefit of exploitative businesses, designed to minimise cost and maximise profit. Surely it's worth questioning that there is now such a plethora of available work placements on a weekly basis: are we to believe that none of these could be converted to actual jobs? The system is just self-manufacturing biased and false success. The government is constantly throwing statistics at the media in attempts to qualify their "achievements", but the rate of people finding work following the scheme does not differ much from the amount of time it usually takes someone on benefits to find employment anyway. The information is too quantitative and not qualitative enough to explain unique individual cases of how employment was found. Here's a statistic that the government is been rather quiet about: seizure of cannabis in England and Wales has more than doubled since 2004. Growing frustration at a lack of proper employment is only likely to make that figure grow higher and higher. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Couldn't agree more.... ONE MILLION youth - 18-24 year olds - unemployment in this country, this is evidence of a despicable failure of the whole system IMO, but now that is being compounded by these "workfare" schemes that are now evidenced to be slowly replacing actual recruitment.. Is this the best the nation can offer its youth...? What a shameful admission.... The Government should be utterly ashamed of itself for how it's clearly failing the young of this country.... Time for a revolution methinks.... -_-

Hmmmm, I tend to think that maybe they should just do completely different stories in different locales in America... I believe first season was LA..? Why not do New Orleans, Chicago, Boston, or other cities in subsequent seasons..? That would make it more apt with regards to the title of the show...

A reformation of the SDP maybe...?

Do you actually believe that spamming sites with crap is an effective way to drum up business....?

Spot on... You and Suedehead make up about a dozen or so people that i know of, be they friends or folks i chat with on Facebook who have left the Fib Dems...Oh dear....

Responding to Critics, S.E.C. Defends ‘No Wrongdoing’ Settlements http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/s-e...ment-practices/ WASHINGTON — The chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission defended the agency’s record of settling fraud cases with Wall Street companies, saying on Wednesday that she believed the agency’s practices “clearly have deterrent value,” even though firms were often charged repeatedly for violating the same securities laws. Mary L. Schapiro, the S.E.C. chairwoman, added that repeat offenders remained a problem because “people have short memories” on Wall Street. That forces the commission to bring many of the same types of cases “so that people don’t forget that they have these obligations and that somebody is watching and somebody is willing to hold them accountable.” The remarks, at a news media breakfast, were the first by Ms. Schapiro to address the issue since a federal district judge refused last year to approve a commission settlement of fraud charges involving Citigroup. S.E.C. Is Avoiding Tough Sanctions for Large Banks (Feb. 3, 2012) Critics of the agency have also raised concerns about its settlement practices over the last decade. According to a New York Times analysis of enforcement cases, nearly all of the biggest Wall Street firms have settled fraud cases by promising never to violate a law that they had already promised not to break, usually multiple times. In addition, the Times analysis showed, those settlements also repeatedly granted exemptions to the biggest Wall Street firms from punishments intended by Congress and regulators to act as a deterrent to multiple fraud violations. The commission frequently settles cases and avoids court costs by allowing a Wall Street firm to pay a fine, often in the millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, while also agreeing that it will not deny that the fraudulent actions took place. The settlements usually do not require the defendants to admit any wrongful conduct. “People won’t settle with us if they have to admit” wrongdoing, Ms. Schapiro said, because it opens them to liability in civil damages lawsuits. But because the settlements often carry terms that require a Wall Street firm to overhaul their compliance departments, she said, “there is a deterrent effect.” The settlements “serve the purpose of putting the rest of the industry on notice,” she said, “about conduct we believe violates the law and can lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, which I don’t think any firm enjoys paying, or seeing their name highlighted as somebody who’s violated the law.” Some people have questioned that deterrent effect and the value of relying on the “neither admit nor deny” clause. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan rejected the commission’s proposed settlement with Citigroup last year, saying that the lack of agreed-upon facts left him with no way to determine whether the settlement was fair, adequate and in the public interest. The commission has appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, which has yet to render a decision. Ms. Schapiro said that she believed recidivism among Wall Street firms was so common “in part because these firms are enormous.” Most Wall Street firms are part of large financial services companies that usually include a commercial bank, an investment bank, a brokerage firm, an insurance company and other types of companies. “In these enterprises, there are lots of problems probably going on at any given time, in far-flung areas,” Ms. Schapiro said, like a structured products unit, the mutual fund management area or the brokerage firm. Sometimes the violations involve individual brokers or branch offices having little to do with the parent company. “These are enormous undertakings and enterprises, and I think as we look in different areas of their businesses and we focus on different topics, we find problems over and over again,” she said. The Times analysis found at least 51 cases at 19 different Wall Street firms in the last 15 years in which the commission had concluded that the company broke antifraud laws that it had previously agreed never to breach. The Times also found nearly 350 instances in which the commission gave big Wall Street firms and other financial institutions a pass on sanctions which, as written in the securities laws and regulations, were to be automatically imposed on companies that settled or were convicted of fraud charges. Ms. Schapiro said the commission entered a settlement only when the amount it expected to receive in fines was the same as the agency could reasonably expect to receive if it took the case to court and won. Settlements have the advantage of returning money to harmed investors quickly, she said, without years of litigation and delay. “Our goal is always to maximize the return to investors,” Ms. Schapiro said. “If we had to litigate every case, we would bring a lot fewer cases.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Short-term memories", would that be because of all the cocaine they hoover up their noses....? Errr no, not quite, Mary, it's more like "they know they can get away with it with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, so keep on doing it.". Imagine me, going into a bank with a shotgun, stealing a million quid, and then, when I get caught by the coppers, I say "hey, tell you what, I'll give you back £100k, but I dont have to admit any wrongdoing... Deal..?" I rather think the CPS would laugh in my face as they slammed the jail door in it.... But this is effectively what's going on in Wall Street and The City to all intents and purposes. And shame on the SEC, they're supposed to be protecting people, and the US itself, from the excesses (as the FSA was supposed to protect the UK, ha ha..), malfeasance and fraud of the banks. When Roosevelt set up the SEC during the Great Depression, he very much intended it to be a watchdog, as in a vicious, snarling Hound of the Baskervilles that would rip your throat out if you trespassed the law. Now the SEC is more like a tame lap-dog who performs tricks for the banking masters.... Law?? What law..?? Roosevelt must be listening to this silly cow Shapiro and basically spinning in his grave right now... “People won’t settle with us if they have to admit” wrongdoing, Ms. Schapiro said, because it opens them to liability in civil damages lawsuits" That is NOT your problem Ms Shapiro, you're there to seek prosecution against offenders (multiple REPEAT offenders in many cases) and act as a deterrent to financial terrorism, not to protect the banks from being righteously sued by clients they have ripped off and pissed on........ It really is about time there was a REAL deterrent brought back for financial crime and financial terrorism... Perhaps we could render some of these f'ucks to Guantanamo Bay perhaps and put them with all the other terrorists.....?

Nick Clegg vows amendments to health bill – but No 10 says it won't change http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/fe...P=FBCNETTXT9038 The government has been plunged into another row over its health reforms after an ambitious move by the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, to cast himself as the saviour of the NHS was undermined by his Tory coalition partners. In an attempt to avoid a damaging backlash at Lib Dem spring conference in Gateshead next week, the deputy prime minister joined forces with Lady Williams of Crosby in a letter promising MPs and peers a series of amendments to the health bill, to "rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS". But the positioning was quickly undermined when the prime minister's spokesman said: "We have made it clear that we do not see any need for further significant changes to the bill." The impression that the amendments, which Clegg had discussed with David Cameron and the Department of Health, were worth little was reinforced by health officials who suggested the changes were minor, and the Conservative chairman of the health select committee, Stephen Dorrell, who said they had all been previously agreed by ministers, or in the case of European competition law, were beyond the powers of Westminster. Later Lib Dems appeared to concede to the government's description of the changes as less like "amendments" and more like "reassurances". In the letter, Clegg praises the Lib Dems for their part in more than 200 hours of scrutiny and more than 1,000 amendments to the health and social care bill, which he said "should guarantee the future of the NHS". But recognising continuing disquiet in his own party in the build up to the spring conference, he offered five more amendments to the controversial third part of the bill, which is supposed to introduce more competition to delivering services in the hope of cutting costs and allows hospitals to make up to 49% of their income from private patients, as long as profits are put back into the NHS. Pressure on Clegg was ramped up when the party chairman, Tim Farron, said last week that the bill should have been dropped or "massively changed". On Monday, hospital doctors looked set to become the latest medical body to formally oppose the reforms, after the Royal College of Physicians voted to ballot of members on dropping the bill. The latest Lib Dem amendments include insistence that Monitor, the independent regulator of foundation trusts, will remain in that role unless specifically removed from it by the health secretary and parliament, and insulating the NHS from the "full force" of competition law. "Once these final changes have been agreed, we believe conference can be reassured that it has finished the job it started last March [at the last spring conference] and the bill should be allowed to proceed," added the letter. Andy Burnham, the Labour shadow health secretary, described the Lib Dem's tactics as an unbelievable piece of self-justifying nonsense. "Today's talk from the Lib Dems of minor amendments is too little, too late. They will only serve to further complicate a bill already described as a 'confused mess' by a former NHS chief executive." Lib Dem MP Andrew George said members who oppose the bill would be less angry, but not happy. An expected emergency debate and vote on the bill at the conference in Gateshead would only be "less uncomfortable" for Clegg, he said. Chris Nicholson, chief executive of the Clegg-supporting thinktank CentreForum, welcomed the letter but warned the bill was still confusing. "Nick and Shirley's letter treads a delicate path between emasculating the competition aspects of the bill, which would be a bad idea, and putting in enough safeguards to provide reassurance. I think it does that successfully. "I think there are still problems with the bill with confused accountability and putting too much power in the hands of GP commissioning consortia. But this letter should address the main concern that Liberal Democrat activists have expressed." Labour claimed the amendments were either copies or rewrites of their own proposed Lords amendments, but sometimes weaker. Peers on Monday rejected a Labour amendment calling for GPs, who will have powers to commission health services for patients, to be penalised if they are found to have conflicts of interest, but accepted what Labour called a more "toothless" Lib Dem version setting up a register of interests. Downing Street caused some irritation among Liberal Democrats by indicating that ministers would not agree to any significant changes to the bill. The prime minister's spokesman said: "We have made clear that we don't see any need for further significant changes to the bill. We had a listening exercise. We made significant changes to the bill. We think that the bill is the right one and the reforms are the right reforms." Speaking a few hours later, after the publication of the Clegg-Williams letter, the No 10 spokesman declined to repeat his statement. Asked whether it was still the case the government would not be making significant changes to the bill, the spokesman said: "That is precisely what I said. The case this afternoon is that we accept that there are some people who require further clarity on some of these issues, particularly those issues relating to competition, want further reassurance and we are very happy to provide that." A department of health source played down the significance of the changes. "We are relaxed about it. This is not neutering or altering the purpose of the bill. We recognise that people feel strongly about it. That is fine." Downing Street said the changes would provide clarity on competition, but that competition could still be increased under the amended bill. "This provides clarity on the role of competition. The level of competition is in the hands of clinical commissioning groups. Where they deem it appropriate to bring in other providers, and they see having other competing providers as a good thing to drive the quality of patient care, they will do that. That is still the case. The extent of competition is in the hands of GPs, clinical commissioning groups. They get to make choices about where providers should come from. They can do that in the best interests of their patients. That has always been the point of the reforms. That remains the case. Clearly we want to bring in new providers. If, by bringing in a new provider, you can improve care for patients then it would be strange not to do that. That is what the reforms do." The Royal College of Physicians voted five to one to survey the college's 25,500 members so they can decide whether it should seek further changes to the bill or join other doctors' groups in demanding its withdrawal. Almost all the speakers voiced serious concerns at the bill's potential impact on the NHS. Some 89% of the 189 RCP fellows present backed a motion which does not bind the RCP leadership and which said that the bill, if passed, "will damage the NHS and the health of the public in England". Large majorities also approved other "indicative" motions urging the RCP to do more to oppose the bill. Doctors voted by 79% to 18% to call on the RCP to call publicly for the bill's withdrawal. Some 81% endorsed a call for it to join forces with other health bodies which ant the plan scrapped, such as the British Medical Association and royal colleges representing GPs, nurses, radiologists and others. RCP president Sir Richard Thompson, who has been criticised by some members for not doing enough to oppose the bill despite criticising key elements of Lansley's plan at last week's Downing Street NHS "summit", said he would discuss with the RCP's ruling council how to act on the concerns raised. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds to me like the Lib Dem party chairman should be the leader, not Cleggy the Manservant... At least then we might have some decent opposition to this horrendous NHS bill which absolutely NOBODY voted for, and wasn't even mentioned in the Manifestos of either Lib Dem or Tory parties... The facts are we're going through this dance again, Clegg voices his "opposition" to something to try and reassure the "plebs" at the Conference who are still foolish enough to believe that the Lib Dems are actually affecting any kind of meaningful influence on Cameron and the Nasty Party. Clegg wants to try and fool the party faithful (and there surely cant be very many of those left, let's face it) at the Conference and try to avoid getting the bloody good spit-roasting that he deserves. But, really, it's all been agreed upon anyway, Clegg will acquiesce like the wimp that he is.. It's really saying something when the Lords are the ones who actually seem to have the backs of the people of the country.....

With a shuddering screech of the emergency brakes..... :lol: :lol:

Precisely... That and the fact that, as my example shows, A4e are clearly failing to provide their "clients" with the proper tools to further themselves into work or learn new skills. So, it kind of begs the question, if A4e aren't spending the massive amounts of tax-payers dosh they get on actually providing the proper equipment, just what the f**k are they doing with OUR money....? <_<