One good point that 'ought' to come out of this is that a lot of people are having a wake-up call.
Several of my cronies are asking where this came from considering the massive problems that the country is facing.
I have tried telling them, but it was like peeing into the wind.
However, the fact that so many people every where are asking the same question will hopefully shed a lot more light on the way we are governed.
Well Done Mr Booker and Dr North.


P.S. We need a smiley in the shape of an 'Oscar' or a 'brownie point' to award to you for these occasions of outstanding performance.

Yes, I think it is that, but a bit more. There is definitely a nexus between the different bodies - UN - EU - CoE and others, all working the agenda between them. They use each other to create an apparent consensus, each bouncing off the other. I've called it elsewhere a "concert of institutions".

I realise now that when the government implements a law that nobody seems to want it is probably coming from the Council of Europe or the EU. I first noticed this phenomenon in the 1990s under John Major but didn't understand why.

The things about left wing philosophy is that it assumes that the general public are backwards and ignorant. So if people are opposed to something this is seen as evidence that it is the right thing to do. This is why protesting against something actually makes it more likely to happen.

I am looking forward to the fun that will be had when the EU implements Europe-wide mortgage regulation, which directly conflicts with the British practise of leaving it up to the free market. The vote is being continuously delayed, due to behind the scenes pressure from British financial lobbyists. A vote is now planned for March. Landlords don't want it either.

I've also found evidence that the EU is researching Europe-wide tenancy law.

Edited by user 10 February 2013 09:21:13(UTC)  | Reason: grammar, additional reserach

So, if Cameron had kept his promise on repealing the ECHR, would we now be facing this issue ? I dare say it would have happened at some point some how, but at least we would have been in more control.

Trust the Lib Dems to be behind it.

It is doubly ironic that is an ex "equalities" minister (whatever that might mean), and a Tory Home Sec. committed to upholding "Conservative family values", completely failed to understand how their policy would backfire on them, due to the usual reasons of haste in rushing the proposals through the Commons, and not understanding the inevitable law of 'unforseen consequences.

The only reason for SSM put forward by government ministers rests upon the false "equality" argument (there are minor additional absurdities such as SSM would "strengthen marriage"). Thus they perpetuated the absurd myth that the redefinition of marriage is somehow a re-balancing towards "equal" marriage.
It now transpires that it is anything but equal because:

1. It would not necessarily, as for normal marriage, include any committment to fidelity and a lifelong indissoluble union.

2.SSM cannot of necessity include a legal or a biological provision of consummation. Such a "union" by definition would be barren and sterile

3. SSM has no provison for separation or divorce on the grounds of adultery - as by law enjoined for heterosexual couples. (homosexuals are known to be the most promiscuous group above all others in western societies.)

4. By definition SSM cannot fulfill one of the most important essentials of normal marriage (except by intervention of one or more third party), namely the ability to beget and raise children in families.

5. SSM would be a genderless union - unknown in any society or culture past or present. Therefore not marriage in any sense, since all species reproduce through the biological union of male and female.

6. Likely participants in SSM are known to be a very tiny minority of an existing minority of people in the UK. (less than 1%). By contrast normal and exclusively heterosexual union is the experience of countless millions of people.
Not much equality there then.

One cannot have totally different sets of rules for those who are 'equally' married, and by so doing entrench reverse discrimination.
By definition therefore if homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in the relevant sense, then homosexual 'marriage' is itself a form of unjust privilege for a tiny minority.

Government is only just beginning to wake up to the legal minefield they have to sort out!

In some EU countries tenancy law is a disaster. Essentially the tenant has a perpetual lease over the property, to the extent that they control, and take a cut from, any transfer of tenancy. You can't even evict for non-payment of rent. I know decent people in who leave property empty rather than let because of this. The rental sector is then left to the gangsters who break your legs if you don’t move out.

Edited by user 11 February 2013 12:18:05(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The EU is not the only one getting their claws into housing.

Obama administration gears up for new ‘healthy housing’ initiative


http://michellemalkin.co...9/obama-healthy-housing/