Tony Blair's autobiography. Options

[Iommi]

We all go by what we read. And what I've read disagrees with your comments. The 1998 act, did, according to some sources I've read, contribute to criminals using the European Human Rights act.

Yes, but that isn't what you said originally. You said that due to TB signing the 1998 act, crime was allowed to go out of control. That is not the same as saying that criminals have been able to exploit the HRA.

You've now added and change it; but originally that wasn't how I read it.

I've changed nothing, the statement is materially the same.

Personally neither of us know; however, according to what I've read, and as Newsnight reported it awhile back there is a different view to this.

Speak for your self. I was alive in 1998 and onwards and I didn't see anything to say that crime had gone out of control. It tends to run in cycles, but this is not due to the act signed in 1998 as the act is still in force and according to the BCS overall crime is down (Radio 4 tonight regards ASB).

I said what I said because of your comments.

So either your argument has floundered (because you got personal), or your statement about getting personal is a display of losing the argument is wrong.

[GMR]

Yes, but that isn't what you said originally. You said that due to TB signing the 1998 act, crime was allowed to go out of control. That is not the same as saying that criminals have been able to exploit the HRA.

That is true, however, I would say both were right. That is according to the piece on Newsnight last year, also in various newspapers.

I've changed nothing, the statement is materially the same.

That is not what I meant; when clarifying you added, or explained better.

Speak for your self. I was alive in 1998 and onwards and I didn't see anything to say that crime had gone out of control. It tends to run in cycles, but this is not due to the act signed in 1998 as the act is still in force and according to the BCS overall crime is down.

You may not, but that doesn't make it so.

So either your argument has floundered (because you got personal), or your statement about getting personal is a display of losing the argument is wrong.

If my arguments got 'personal' then that was because I responded to the way you replied to me; i.e. I read it personally and not directed at the topic.

[HeatherW]

If I could butt in here. I saw it as you both were being personal but I do agree with GMR when he said he was replying to Iommi’s post, thus, responded likewise. Therefore you are both are at fault. So both be gentleman and shake hands.

As for the ‘Human rights Act’. I am certainly not an expert but reading the broadsheets and watching many political shows, including news channels it has been reported over the years that criminals are using the ‘Human rights act’ more to try to get out of their crimes. I have also never read where a victim has used the ‘Human rights act’ to get help. So my conclusion is that the ‘Human rights act’ has made things worse. Let me clarify that. It might have helped certain groups that have been repressed but not the ordinary person in the street, other than the criminal (as I see it). I also believe, from my own observations, that crime has increased since Blair came to power. More so in the anti social department. I also noticed recently that the coalition government concur over this. But then that could be just political one-upmanship.

[Iommi]

You may not, but that doesn't make it so.

Well the BCS and a number of other polls suggest crime is not, and indeed, never was 'out of control'. Indeed, I'm alive now and crime doesn't appear to be out of control (or at least no worse than any other time I can remember) and we are still signed up to the 1998 act.

If my arguments got 'personal' then that was because I responded to the way you replied to me; i.e. I read it personally and not directed at the topic.

It was totally on topic because you made a claim (an exaggerated claim) that TB signed us up to the HRA which enable crime to go out of control. I maintain that this is bogus and I have explained why.

Do you think we should be signed up to the 1998 act, and if not, do you think it would make any difference?

[GMR]

Well the BCS and a number of other polls suggest crime is not, and indeed, never was 'out of control'. Indeed, I'm alive now and crime doesn't appear to be out of control (or at least no worse than any other time I can remember) and we are still signed up to the 1998 act.

I accept that I might have used the wrong word when I said 'out of control' but it has increased. I was probably talking from a more personal note.

It was totally on topic because you made a claim (an exaggerated claim) that TB signed us up to the HRA which enable crime to go out of control. I maintain that this is bogus and I have explained why.

As I said above; I accept that 'out of control' use might not have been appropriate, but crime as increased since Blair came to power.

Do you think we should be signed up to the 1998 act, and if not, do you think it would make any difference?

No; I am against any interference from Brussels. If it was right then it should be up to our own parliament and its citizens to decide, not a foreign body.

[GMR]

If I could butt in here. I saw it as you both were being personal but I do agree with GMR when he said he was replying to Iommi's post, thus, responded likewise. Therefore you are both are at fault. So both be gentleman and shake hands.

As for the 'Human rights Act'. I am certainly not an expert but reading the broadsheets and watching many political shows, including news channels it has been reported over the years that criminals are using the 'Human rights act' more to try to get out of their crimes. I have also never read where a victim has used the 'Human rights act' to get help. So my conclusion is that the 'Human rights act' has made things worse. Let me clarify that. It might have helped certain groups that have been repressed but not the ordinary person in the street, other than the criminal (as I see it). I also believe, from my own observations, that crime has increased since Blair came to power. More so in the anti social department. I also noticed recently that the coalition government concur over this. But then that could be just political one-upmanship.

I am quite happy to apologise for my part.

As for the rest of what you've said; I agree.

[Iommi]

If I could butt in here. I saw it as you both were being personal but I do agree with GMR when he said he was replying to Iommi’s post, thus, responded likewise. Therefore you are both are at fault. So both be gentleman and shake hands.

No, I won't as I disagree. His 'your simple' post was unjustified. I said his 'rhetoric was a little simplistic'. This doesn't justify his claim that it was to make it easy for me to understand.

Calling someone's rhetoric as a little simplistic is not getting personal; it is a comment on the text. Suggesting someone is simple is being personal.

As for the ‘Human rights Act’. I am certainly not an expert but reading the broadsheets and watching many political shows, including news channels it has been reported over the years that criminals are using the ‘Human rights act’ more to try to get out of their crimes. I have also never read where a victim has used the ‘Human rights act’ to get help. So my conclusion is that the ‘Human rights act’ has made things worse. Let me clarify that. It might have helped certain groups that have been repressed but not the ordinary person in the street, other than the criminal (as I see it). I also believe, from my own observations, that crime has increased since Blair came to power. More so in the anti social department. I also noticed recently that the coalition government concur over this. But then that could be just political one-upmanship.

You are, as is GMR, entitled to your opinion, I even would have agreed sometime back, but I have started to read through a lot of the rubbish reported on TV, radio and the papers. People will have anecdotally different examples, but that doesn't prove that what one experiences is the same for the majority.

What I need to stress, as GMR seems to have difficulty in this, is that the content of the 1998 act is practically the same as the act we were already under, so while you might think that the HRA has enabled more crime (I think that is wrong), that doesn't mean it was because of TB's signing of the 1998 act.

[Iommi]

I accept that I might have used the wrong word when I said 'out of control' but it has increased. I was probably talking from a more personal note. As I said above; I accept that 'out of control' use might not have been appropriate, but crime as increased since Blair came to power. No; I am against any interference from Brussels. If it was right then it should be up to our own parliament and its citizens to decide, not a foreign body.

If we were to put to one side whether crime is up or down; I maintain that this isn't necessarily down to the 1998 act, not even the ECHR.

No; I am against any interference from Brussels. If it was right then it should be up to our own parliament and its citizens to decide, not a foreign body.

There's a lot about the EU that I dislike and I feel it is because of this that we need the HRA.

[GMR]

No, I won't as I disagree. His 'your simple' post was unjustified. I said his 'rhetoric was a little simplistic'. This doesn't justify his claim that it was to make it easy for me to understand.

Same as your remarks were unjustified. You should have clarified better, instead of your easy way of writing.

You are, as is GMR entitled to your opinion, I even would have agreed sometime back, but I have started to read through a lot of the rubbish reported on TV, radio and the papers. People will have anecdotally different examples, but that doesn't prove that what one experiences is the same for the majority.

I agree that there is a lot of rubbish on TV, nevertheless, what I have noticed it is only rubbish if it doesn't agree with ones point of view.

Ones experience could be the same for the majority.

What I need to stress, as GMR seems to have difficulty in this, is that the content of the 1998 act is practically the same as the act we were already under, so while you might think that the HRA has enable more crime (I think that is wrong), that isn't evidence of TB's signing of the 1998 act.

I agree that the act was the same, but different in the sense that originally you had to go through the EU, while the act that was incorporated into our law had a direct affect.... and a more noticeable one.

[HeatherW]

No, I won't as I disagree. His 'your simple' post was unjustified. I said his 'rhetoric was a little simplistic'. This doesn't justify his claim that it was to make it easy for me to understand.

Calling someone's rhetoric as a little simplistic is not getting personal; it is a comment on the text. Suggesting someone is simple is being personal.


You are, as is GMR, entitled to your opinion, I even would have agreed sometime back, but I have started to read through a lot of the rubbish reported on TV, radio and the papers. People will have anecdotally different examples, but that doesn't prove that what one experiences is the same for the majority.

What I need to stress, as GMR seems to have difficulty in this, is that the content of the 1998 act is practically the same as the act we were already under, so while you might think that the HRA has enabled more crime (I think that is wrong), that doesn't mean it was because of TB's signing of the 1998 act.

You are entitled to your opinion but that was not how I read it. I read it that you wrote to provoke, rather than debate. The same with the other poster who replied to GMR. But I also must be fair here and say that I have noticed that GMR also writes to provoke a response so I would imagine that such behaviour is endemic of forum life. I would imagine that has to do with people hiding behind made up names. I wonder if you lot behave this way when out in the cold day light? But I do enjoy reading all your posts. It is very educational. At least it is better than watching fictional soaps. At least you have a real life soap opera on this Newbury forum.

As for ‘entitled to our opinion’ I say, of course. Without it we would be in an even sadder cultural environment. I wonder what George Orwell would have made of such oratory and computer life in the 21st century? Would he have thought that this was the beginning of his vision?

[GMR]

If we were to put to one side whether crime is up or down; I maintain that this isn't necessarily down to the 1998 act, not even the ECHR.

I agree and I never said it was, I said it didn't help; two different things.

There's a lot about the EU that I dislike and I feel it is because of this that we need the HRA.

I doubt it will make any difference in that respect.

[GMR]

As for 'entitled to our opinion' I say, of course. Without it we would be in an even sadder cultural environment. I wonder what George Orwell would have made of such oratory and computer life in the 21st century? Would he have thought that this was the beginning of his vision?

Some would argue that Orwell was a visionary. I've read quite a few of his books and he saw things others didn't.

[Iommi]

Same as your remarks were unjustified. You should have clarified better, instead of your easy way of writing.

That is simply NOT true, you have even admitted you were exaggerating. If you had not exaggerated, I wouldn't have had cause to make the post I did.

I agree that there is a lot of rubbish on TV, nevertheless, what I have noticed it is only rubbish if it doesn't agree with ones point of view.

Well researched and articulated will do me, regardless of the message.

I agree that the act was the same, but different in the sense that originally you had to go through the EU, while the act that was incorporated into our law had a direct affect.... and a more noticeable one.

I can't see any evidence where. We were forever hearing about people 'going to Europe' for one reason or another, maybe at the tax payers expense, now that is not necessary and saves money.

You are entitled to your opinion but that was not how I read it. I read it that you wrote to provoke, rather than debate.

While I cannot legislate for how you read it, on closer scrutiny, I don't see that I was 'getting personal' (which is my complaint). You might say it was harsh or brusque, but that isn't the same as getting personal. I most certainly think it was on topic and relevant.

The same with the other poster who replied to GMR.

Like me, the other poster was challenging what we disagreed with.

But I also must be fair here and say that I have noticed that GMR also writes to provoke a response so I would imagine that such behaviour is endemic of forum life. I would imagine that has to do with people hiding behind made up names. I wonder if you lot behave this way when out in the cold day light? But I do enjoy reading all your posts. It is very educational. At least it is better than watching fictional soaps. At least you have a real life soap opera on this Newbury forum.

Yes GMR and me are employed to wind people up.

I agree and I never said it was, I said it didn't help; two different things.

"law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen)"

I doubt it will make any difference in that respect.

Not if you live in France.

[GMR]

That is simply NOT true, you have even admitted you were exaggerating. If you had not exaggerated, I wouldn't have had cause to make the post I did.

My remarks had nothing to do with the way you responded in the style you did.

Well researched and articulated will do me, regardless of the message.

I agree; but again, that also depends who reads it and will it support their arguments.

I can't see any evidence where. We were forever hearing about people 'going to Europe' for one reason or another, maybe at the tax payers expense, now that is not necessary and saves money.

And you say you don't believe in what the papers say. A lot of them exaggerated. Since it has been incorporated it has been free for all.

While I cannot legislate for how you read it

But I bet you will try.

...., on closer scrutiny, I don't see that I was 'getting personal' (which is my complaint). You might say it was harsh or brusque, but that isn't the same as getting personal.

You are splitting hairs here. Besides, I wasn't the only one who noticed it.

Like me, the other poster was challenging what we disagreed with.

Challenging is good; but there are ways and means.

Yes GMR and me are employed to wind people up.

The question is; who gets paid the most?

"law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen)"


Not if you live in France.

I suggest you read the lastest of what is happening in France.

[HeatherW]

That is simply NOT true, you have even admitted you were exaggerating. If you had not exaggerated, I wouldn't have had cause to make the post I did.


Well researched and articulated will do me, regardless of the message.


I can't see any evidence where. We were forever hearing about people 'going to Europe' for one reason or another, maybe at the tax payers expense, now that is not necessary and saves money.


While I cannot legislate for how you read it, on closer scrutiny, I don't see that I was 'getting personal' (which is my complaint). You might say it was harsh or brusque, but that isn't the same as getting personal. I most certainly think it was on topic and relevant.


Like me, the other poster was challenging what we disagreed with.


Yes GMR and me are employed to wind people up.


"law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen)"


Not if you live in France.

I read your remarks as you intended them to be read. To wound. But then you both seem to be cut from the same material. Without each other I think you both would be lost. "H ell hath no fury like two old dears scorned.”


As for the remarks that you and GMR are employed to wind people up, I can believe that. I just hope you two are paid well?

[Simon Kirby]

You had freedom of speech and therefore protest under the English constitution and still have. Whilst the trend these days is to try and chip away at it, we have some fundamental freedoms enshrined in that and our common law. Ironically, something they never had on the Continent. The independence of our Courts is one of them and directly related, some many years ago, I saw a County Court Registrar dispense real justice. A neighbouring local authority were trying to evict one of their tenants under a very unfair clause in the Council's tenancy agreement. Indeed, trying to do it just before the law changed and abolished these unfair clauses. The Registrar heard both sides and gave his jdecision. The Council had every right to evict under the terms of the agreement but the tenant was being unjustly treated. So he gave judgment to the Council - to take effect one day after the law changed. That's justice.

I agree that our system of justice is good, and equitable relief is a possibility and would even prevail over law, but I'd need grounds and I'm not aware of any. The HRA gives me a defence in law.

[GMR]

I read your remarks as you intended them to be read. To wound. But then you both seem to be cut from the same material. Without each other I think you both would be lost. "H ell hath no fury like two old dears scorned."


As for the remarks that you and GMR are employed to wind people up, I can believe that. I just hope you two are paid well?

I can't speak for me ( ) but you seem to have painted an accurate portrait of my old friend and nemesis and fifth Beatle Iommi.

[Iommi]

And you say you don't believe in what the papers say.

I did?

A lot of them exaggerated. Since it has been incorporated it has been free for all.

There you go again

You are splitting hairs here. Besides, I wasn't the only one who noticed it.

Nonsense, I've explained the difference. And even if I was the only one to think so, I am comfortable with my position.

Challenging is good; but there are ways and means.

He gave you opportunity to explain, but you tended to waffle.

The question is; who gets paid the most?

You get paid!!! You b***h!

I suggest you read the lastest of what is happening in France.

That is what I mean!

[GMR]

There you go again

That is pretty bloody obvious because whatever i said I would have gone again.

Nonsense, I've explained the difference. And even if I was the only one to think so, I have comfortable with my position.

Of course you are, I would expect nothing less.

He gave you opportunity to explain, but you tended to waffle.

I think I've lost the thread; who?

You get paid!!! You b*****d!

you are probably right on both accounts; but I just put it down to my own unique gift.

That is what I mean!

Excellent; I knew you would finally see the light

[GMR]

Why the change of heart? See below; you changed what you wrote.

You get paid!!! You b***h!

You get paid!!! You b*****d!