Presumably more of all this stuff 'belongs' to high rate tax payers and most of it to the really rich who have paid the most in taxes - the very people that nick and tux will have shot straight away come the glorious revolution.

What a lot of bollocks...........it was just another state owned industry, that in this case I think was right to sell off.
Amazing how they are now making good profits.
And don't start telling me how all the workers are up in arms.
My other half is a postwoman,yes they might have to work a bit harder,but they had it to cushey for many years.
And its not just to quote one of you're fav lines"fat cat's" that have made money out of the sale.
Because every worker got a good amount of shares.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Usual double standards. Outrage from Nick when the government tries to stop terrorist apologists and worse spouting their vile, while he is silent when an 85-year-old woman is arrested, handcuffed and fined for telling some people to 'go home'. What happened to her freedom of speech? Similarly he supports the prosecution of a bakery in Northern Ireland for not supporting 'gay marriage' - even though such ceremonies are illegal there.

Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 7.52am)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

whereas you guys are utterly balanced and open minded in your analyses at all times

I really dislike the idea of adopting Orwellian images in a utterly disproportionate way. Provided the legal statutes of Free Speech are retained (ie that which does not instigate, call for or incite criminal action) then its not going to be a problem.

Plus of course there is recourse to the Human Rights Act in defense. The idea of free speech is a myth anyhow, because speech that has impact isn't free, its remarkably expensive and the property of an elite in society anyhow.

Freedom of Expression and Speech must not become a situation as in America, where in it has become a right by which persecution, hatred and prejudice by majority groups become justified in law.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Illegal is over stating the case somewhat, they're regarded in law as being civil partnerships.

Also the law wouldn't be particually useful against Apologists, unless they specifically are vocal in their support of groups such as IS or encourage others to join or otherwise commit a criminal offence. I very much doubt you'd be able to get a conviction that would stand up to the Human Right of Free Speech, unless it intimated or encouraged criminal actions or terrorism.

Saying you support IS wouldn't be a crime, but encouraging others to support IS would be.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]