Francisco D
31/10/05
Feed of published comments
COMMENTS: 30
DEBATE:
SENT:
19-Nov-2009 10:14
COMMENT:
Whilst I think bankers should pay for their part in the financial crisis, I don't think giving an institution the power to rip up contracts is a good idea. It challenges the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. If they wanted to have pay legislation enshrined in law, a better way would have been to mandate banks to have the FSA approve all new contracts before they are signed. That wouldn't challenge fundamental as much as the current proposal.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
26-Aug-2009 10:27
COMMENT:
To those who support the measure, Think of the real world equivalent: Imagine a thief takes a CD from a shop. On the way out he gives the assistant an address. The shop then calls the door maker, who has the right to ban the occupants from that address from ever leaving their home again. If they're nice, their staff will, without getting a warrant, go through the occupants' mail, tap the phone, etc, first. If you won't stand for that in real life...
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
26-Aug-2009 10:17
COMMENT:
To Ash, Barnsley, I don't know where you get £3/song in iTunes from. I've got iTunes and it's 79p or 99p for a song.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
26-Aug-2009 08:54
COMMENT:
A simpler method of killing the crime without causing privacy concerns is to look at file sharing itself. File sharing producers have argued there are legitimate uses for file sharing but it's mostly used to rip off copyrighted material. How about changing the law to make the file sharing industry take steps to block copyrighted material on their networks. If you attack the means then the crime is more likely to be limited to those who are determined to break copyright.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
3
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
26-Aug-2009 08:46
COMMENT:
No I don't think that the proposal's reasonable: 1) It is easy to fake an IP address (see On The Media's article about Find Evan Ratliff), 2) Even if you can trace it to a specific customer, the sharing may have been initiated by malware, 3) The amount of intrusion into a person's private life to prove your case would, in most cases, be highly disproportionate to the crime and, 4) If you didn't prove it, cutting off a person's Internet is extreme.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
6
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
23-Aug-2009 10:52
COMMENT:
so how do you explain that SCOTLAND has the highest murder rate in Europe!!!! get your facts right Peter, Leeds I've got to be careful as we're in danger of going off-topic here so I'll answer that question with a couple of questions and leave it at that: This is one decision, what's the rest of the system like? How does it compare overall to the rest of Europe?
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
23-Aug-2009 09:42
COMMENT:
However, the decision should have been made by a parole board (or similar body) rather than a politician. If the decision had been made independently of politicians then those opposed to the decision would not have had so much ammunition because, apart from jeopardising the independence of the judicial system, it does leave the decision makers open to the charge that they made the decision on considerations outside of the case in question.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
23-Aug-2009 09:35
COMMENT:
I think the right decision was reached for two reasons: 1) Treating people with compassion is just right and 2) There is evidence that shows that countries that have humane legal systems tend to have lower crime rates (and those that have harsher legal systems tend to have higher crime rates). It's just something to think about.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
28
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
15-Aug-2009 12:03
COMMENT:
A comment on Business Daily summed up the choice America makes pretty well: All healthcare systems need to be rationed but do you ration on the basis of costs or waiting lists? Given a choice between the American system and British system I'd rather have the NHS. That's not to say that there are not better systems out there but what is the point of having a life saving operation if it means that you have to give up everything to get it?
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
14-Aug-2009 20:12
COMMENT:
Whilst the NHS isn't perfect it does strike me as one of the better systems: universal and free at the point of use (except for prescription charges, dental treatment, etc). We may criticise individual elements of the system but I'd rather be in a system where everyone is treated fairly than a system where being poor means, essentially, no healthcare.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
11-Aug-2009 08:29
COMMENT:
There is some evidence to suggest that Britain has colluded with torture but, until they are properly investigated, we cannot be sure one way or the other. For a proper investigation an outside body (say UN human rights investigators) need to examine the evidence and report. If allegations seem to have merit then the UK Government should go on trial at the Hague.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
11-Aug-2009 08:22
COMMENT:
I'm surprised it's taken this long for the LibDems to realise this truth. The attack on our rights and liberties, the surveillance that keeps increasing, and proposals for laws and technology that only serve to further put the lives of ordinary citizens under the microscope. I'm seriously thinking of leaving this country to find somewhere which does value freedom and democracy but, as someone else has commented, the UK isn't the only place where this terrible trend can be found.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
07-Aug-2009 10:18
COMMENT:
This decision should not be made on public opinion and the European Court of Human Rights has already criticised the UK for putting judicial decisions into that hands of a politician. Decisions should be made on the evidence not by focus groups or spin concerns. If we let public opinion sway individual judicial decisions we're one step away from mob rule. I'm for the public expressing their opinions on judicial decisions but the judicial system should be independent.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
07-Aug-2009 09:51
COMMENT:
I already pay for my news: It's called the Licence Fee. As for other news sources. I would only consider paying if: 1. The journalism was of high quality, 2. The information could not be found easily elsewhere, 3. The information were of interest to me, and 4. I could afford it. Most news sites fail on 2, Murdoch's Empire would fail on point 1 and, unfortunately, I do have to consider point 4.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
DEBATE:
SENT:
02-Aug-2009 17:54
COMMENT:
If he's going to get a fair trial there then the extradition should go ahead. If he isn't then the question is whether he'll get a fairer trial here. If the answer to the 2nd question is "no" then he should be sent and we should have a look at our system of justice. If the answer to the 2nd question is "yes" then he should stay here and we should seriously consider not extraditing anyone to the US.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
0
people
|
|
Home
BBC News channel
