General Chat

"Please do not communicate anything that is, or could be considered, abusive, intimidating, discriminatory, threatening, mean spirited or intended to harass or cause (or be capable of causing) trouble, upset or offence to anyone".


Quote anything from the current government and you'd break at least one of those T&C's

"or could be considered" to be, vulgar, profane or offensive.
and (or be capable of causing) trouble, upset or offence to anyone"

Applies to more than 90% of threads being debated on the General chat board depending on your point of view

Roy

"Please do not communicate anything that is, or could be considered, abusive, intimidating, discriminatory, threatening, mean spirited or intended to harass or cause (or be capable of causing) trouble, upset or offence to anyone".


That is rather broad - especially where 'itchy finger' (AKA the random RR'r) is concerned.

I've seen a few of those, but they've stayed.

When they contact you they are supposed to tell you which T&C your in breach of this is the one they prefer

2. Inappropriate content

Please do not communicate anything that is, or could be considered to be, vulgar, profane or offensive.

Please do not communicate anything that is, or could be considered, abusive, intimidating, discriminatory, threatening, mean spirited or intended to harass or cause (or be capable of causing) trouble, upset or offence to anyone. Please do not communicate anything that could be considered obscene or pornographic.

Roy

Posted from the Norty step :-D

I wonder what terms and conditions I broke?? It was no different from what some of the other people have said.....oh well, I shall be posting even less now....If any at all...

Jules x

Charming !!!

This is what genes has said..

Dear ~~ Jules in Wiltshire~~

You recently added a message board response using your Genes Reunited membership.

It has been brought to our attention that the nature of this posting breaches the Message Board guidelines and terms and conditions of our website and the item has now been removed from Genes Reunited.

Continuing to create content of this nature may result in your eventual removal from the site.

what about our human rights to live in safely in our own country

Im going to contact genes and ask them why....All I said was send them all back and that they should lose their human rights once they commit a crime....Whats wrong with that?? Have sent them a message...I don't post very often...This is the first time in 8yrs of membership I have ever had a post removed and without explanation

Jules x :- :-S

can't remember what you said but I endorsed it

OMG i saw that post this morning Jules !!! There was nothing wrong with it !!!! x

Where has my post gone???

Well I never! Never knew Jules to upset anyone before.

Although I vehemently defend the importance of the independence of our courts I have to agree that immigrants who commit crimes in this country should be deported. However I think there are to many courts involved in dealing with such cases and that he law is fatally flawed.

The Supreme Court is the highest UK court in the land and as controversial and costly as this may seem, all cases where an immigrant is found guilty of committing a crime that is subject to trial only by a Crown Court, it should be mandatory that the case is referred to the Supreme Court for sentencing and there should only be one sentence, immediate deportation, and unless there are "exceptional extenuating circumstances" leave to appeal should be denied by the Supreme Court.

This would require substantial changes to legislation and any changes would also need to state "unambiguously" what would be exceptional extenuating circumstances, it may also require some additional judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court but that cost would be minimal compared to the cost of the present endless appeals. The court could mirror the workings of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland.

In Scotland the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court and it sits in various cities and larger towns throughout Scotland. The criminal court below that is the Sheriff Court but its sentencing powers are limited by statute. However, if a Sheriff thinks the crime warrants a higher sentence they can refer the case to the High Court of Justiciary who have the power to impose a higher sentence. To deal with such cases the High Court of Justiciary regularly holds what you might call sentencing sessions.

I like being controversial ;-)

well said Jules :-)

The original aim of the "Right to Family Life" was to prevent the State from placing restrictions on people.
Mission creep has gradually extended this far beyond the original intention.
It SHOULD be interpreted as "If deported you have the right to take your wife, civil partner, children and pets with you".

Since the role of the Lord Chancellor was diminished in 2005 I have had concerns about the number of times governments of all parties have tried to thwart the decisions of the courts and interfere with their independence.

Prior to 2005 the Lord Chancellor was always either a senior judge or an experienced barrister, one of their prime tasks was to ensure the efficient functioning and independence of the courts.

Since 2005 governments have challenged, High Court Decisions, Court of Appeal Decisions, and no doubt they will challenge Supreme Court decisions.

The television programme Judge John Deed may be fictitious but it does sometimes demonstrate the scenarios that could occur when politicians try to control the courts.

Our judges may make decisions we don't agree with, there are many I disagree with, but they must stand their ground, they are the only protection we have from the excesses of government. Politicians must not be allowed to go down the road of making judges their puppets, if they are allowed to, it will be the start of sliding down a slippery slope to having a legal system like those operated in countries run by dictatorships.

Other EU countries seem to manage it ..so I reckon it's about time we toughened up a bit.

The judges interpret the law so it is their decision who goes and who stays. A spokesman said yesterday that a change in legislation is required because judges are there to interpret the law not do the government's bidding. They are supposed to be politically neutral.

As for the cat story the media leapt on that but failed to mention that the cat was mentioned as an aside to the man having a wife and child. That was why he wasn't deported.

Ms May cannot change the law . people need to read the lisburn treaty. the european human rights act, had to be come part of british law because of this treaty. other countries had an opt-out clause were the UK dosent.