Yes, but that is for their benefit, they will take, store and use information about you for their own nefarious purposes at any time of their choosing. It is the whole point of their so-called Human Rights legislation... Any rights that you may have, you have because WE (not the people) WE the government permit them... For the time being.

Wakefield seems to have been guilty of jumping the gun with his research, rather than acting inappropriately. He certainly noticed an apparent link between the multiple vaccine and autism, but instead of proving beyond any shadow of doubt, he went ahead and published... He got himself struck off as a result.

I can remember listening to a man talking about his son, who had reacted very similarly to this little girl after receiving the MMR. However, he had subsequently read the packaging, and noted that the vaccine should only be administered to subjects that were in excellent health. It would seem that the manufacturer had reservations about hitting a child with such powerful substances whilst they had influenza or a cold etc.. The question in his mind was... "How does a doctor/nurse know (if there are no symptoms) that a child has a bug of some sort? His advice was to go ahead with vaccination, but to take the "single" route, to avoid what happened to his son.

I am not sure that I would look favourably on a doctor or nurse that provided the stimulus that triggered autism in my child, this has to be one of the worst things that can happen to a child. The drug companies and the practitioners will make all sorts of excuses including blaming the child for having some pre-existing condition, but there is no way that without the multi-shot that they can be guilty of causing autism, but with it, they seem to be taking a risk.

If I were a practitioner, I would be avoiding this vaccine like the plague.

I don't know what the situation is in the USA (I understand that all children must be vaccinated), but in the UK there is no such requirement, but most people do, they can pay cash and get the singles, or they can use the NHS and get the multiple shot, or they can opt out.

I do not think that the agreed compensation figure is at all unreasonable, caring for someone with this sort of condition is very expensive. Certainly if there are enough of these claims that reach a successful conclusion, there is eventually going to be a change of policy, and that can only be good.

All I know is that when I was supporting around 100 (glossy) CRT's in the 90's, everyone wanted some kind of 'overscreen' to reduce glare, they were often made by Polaroid. I thought it was great when manufacturers started to provide the LCD type monitors, they were all matte... Then along came Sony, they looked better on the shelf in the shop, but once they were in use, the glare became the problem.

I agree that a point is being missed here, for my application I wanted silence... My little Zotac motherboard is installed next to my Linn DS and along with linear power supply and no fans on the motherboard, I have the slowest of the SSD's here, the Kingston, it contains the OS and the applications. My data including 600GB of uncompressed music is elsewhere on the network. Horses for courses.

This has to be patentable... I mean a WHOLE committee of reasonably intelligent politicians. There is certainly novelty in this!

I did the political compass about 5 years ago, I even paid for the certificate, incidentally, I am about a quarter of an inch above the head of Ayn Rand.

So no, I do not think I am confused.

Most authoritarianism is left-wing, it is why Gandhi never formed a government, he was a socialist theorist who hated the authoritarian British regime, he oversaw and engineered it's end, even though that had more to do with WW2 than anything else, and then stood by while the even more authoritarian Jinna and Nerhu fucked up the sub-continent with war and commie crap; Pakistan has never recovered. Without becoming an authoritarian himself he could never have formed a socialist left wing government.

On the other hand if you look at the political compass; within the right authoritarian quadrant, the big ones are all just over the border from the left.

I think the political compass concept is an exercise in nitpicking... but that is just me.

I think that socialism, fascism, nazism etc. are both left-wing and authoritarian, because they force people (against their will) to modify their innate behaviour at the behest of government.

OTOH, right wing politics is by nature libertarian, because it frees people to do their own thing and thrive or fail.

The happy medium is to be found in somewhere like Switzerland, where the tendency of the politicians is to be left-wing, but the people keep them in their place through the use of their voting system, and I suppose ultimately their citizens army...

Well it has worked this way for 800 years anyway.

That depends on what you mean by right wing???

Left-wing, Right-wing, is a guide to a person's view of a government's stance on economics and it's associated level of liberty.

The government of the UK and it's overseeing masters in Brussels is definitely left-wing. It has been thus in the UK since 1946 when the Labour government started interfering in everything... and I mean everything. Left-wing government is so completely embedded in the nation that most people do not even know what right-wing is. A left-wing government, is one that supports big business against the interests of small business and the man on the Clapham omnibus, this is also (according to Mussolini) called fascism. Don't tell me I am wrong, Mussolini invented and practised the principle in Italy in the 1920-30s by entering into massive construction schemes involving his government and the big industrialists at Alfa Romeo and Fiat etc. Whole towns full of men and women were herded to some God-forsaken marsh to slavishly build new cities for the industrialists to thrive in. Left-wing government operates by holding a big stick over ordinary people and telling them what is good for them... it... whatever IT is, is NEVER good for them. You can call this kind of government communist, you can call it socialist, you can call it fascist, you can call it democratic, and they often do.... but it ain't right wing.

Right wing, is where the government, protects the people and their interests from external or internal attack, by ensuring that the people can defend themselves against an attacker, and that includes a hostile government. They raise a very low tax to pay for their upkeep, and then they leave people alone! They leave people to look after their own interests, to become rich or clever, or even the reverse and they say and do... nuffink.

In one country, they have a system whereby, the people can force the government do do its will. This country is called Switzerland, and the people there are per capita, the richest and best educated and best looked after (in a welfare sense) of any nation on the earth, and they do this with very little in the way of natural resources. They do it through a system called direct democracy, the people have the whip hand, it is called a VOTE and it is used against professional politicians at every opportunity in the interests of the majority of the people.

Now, that is right wing, the government is so under employed that it is part-time!

So in a nutshell, left-wing is a government that works from the top down, and right-wing government is where the people delegate the things that they cannot do for themselves to a larger body... so called bottom up, or as the European Union laughingly call it.... subsidiarity.

Apparently most of these "passwords" were either blank " " or "PASSWORD" or something equally clever. Nice!

The BBC is leftie... It is pro-EU... Pro warmist... Everything that Obama does or says is considered "historic". When one of the few genuine right-wingers in the UK is interviewed by the BBC, it is always very hostile. As a source of balanced comment the BBC is indeed, extremely dubious.

What is this frequent bundling of BNP/UKIP about? BNP has racism built into its fibre; you cannot be a member if you have a different skin colour for instance... OTOH UKIP is non-racist, non sectarian and every time some cretin in the press attempts to suggest otherwise. they are proven wrong and have to retract. They do have an Australian style immigration policy though, and it applies equally to all people from any background, it is based on economics, not race or creed.

Instead this policy seems to me to be an expensive way for our bureaucrats to justify their existence.

Under the international conventions on refugee status, I understand that an asylum seeker is obliged to seek refuge in the nearest "safe" country, in the case of the Horn of Africa, clearly the UK is not this.

If the suspicion is that some of these applicants are "economic refugees", then surely it would be better to admit applicants who can prove that they have either a sponsor, or an invitation to work from an employer that needs a particular skill.

It should not matter what the genetic background of an applicant is; the most important factor should be that they will not be a burden on the welfare system (NHS Social security etc.).

Genetic filtering has the whiff of Nazism about it.

Mussolini wrote: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"

The European Union is an example of this, and as such, is fascist.

Perhaps you imagine that all fascist countries have dictators called Hitler or Franco or Mussolini, they do not. Fascism is defined by an absence of democracy, and an unholy alliance between mega corps and the political elites.

A couple of examples that I have just read about today are, first Intel have just ploughed hundreds of thousands of Euros into the coffers of the "yes" camp in the forthcoming Irish referendum. Second a company called Serco has just announced record profits despite a general recession... What does this company do, it works exclusively with EU governments to deliver public services, all of its sales are paid for out of taxation.

There is no place in the ambitions of the EU for such niceties as elections to parliaments where power is concentrated. The EP is a talking shop with no lawmaking powers, it can only (but rarely does through lack of any real opposition) say no to the edicts of the unelected European Commission.

As I believe I explained earlier, the Irish are all that lies between the end of 27 nation-states and the birth of one European Union with a number of "regions", none of which are known as England.

No other nation-states were allowed a vote; an earlier version of Lisbon called the EU constitution was voted down twice, EU member states are full of people who don't know how to vote, they cannot be trusted, if it was possible for the European Commission to elect another people... it would.

Unfortunately Ireland already had a little thing called a constitution which demanded a vote, they voted "no" in June last year and that was wrong, so they are being given another chance. From what I am hearing the "noes" are gaining ground rapidly.

In the event that they vote "yes" do you suppose that they will ever have another vote on this issue? The answer is no, but what if they had voted "yes" last time, would they be voting again in October... again, the answer is no.

Ha Ha... Generally speaking I trust my local barber, but he only changes my appearance whereas the EP only gives the appearance of being able to change anything. In reality it cannot actually change anything, that is all decreed by the anti-democratic and fascist European Commission or politbureau.

As for the European judiciary, it is foreign and operates under the corpus juris system (guilty until you prove yourself innocent), it does not recognise the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Oh well, I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.

Maybe you do. Maybe you are a big fan of textbook fascism!

But here is the interesting bit, would you think that if we were asked, that you (and your friends) would get it?

Ireland said they didn't want it and now they are being asked again (drat their constitution requires it)! If Paddy votes "NO" again, are they going to keep being asked until they give the "right" answer, or are they going to bring Lisbon to the Irish (and the rest of us) by the back door?

Or another scenario, suppose the Irish vote "yes" are the EU going to give it a best out of three vote?... HA HA, you know the answer.

This is true, but only until Lisbon is enacted. The Lisbon Treaty (aka the constitution of the European Union) should more properly be called the Lisbon Putsch. This so-called treaty, which no citizen/subject (apart from a few Irish people) has had a vote on, is a putsch... it is a power grab. Lisbon makes the European Union a sovereign state, and the ex nation-state of the United Kingdom becomes a region of the EU.

As an example, before Lisbon the UK, if it was so minded, could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and cease to be a member state of the European Union... Afterwards, it will have to apply to the Council of Europe, where a majority will have to agree the application, following which the European Parliament (ha ha) will be required to vote on any secession.

I don't know the full details of the ruck which caused the Confederation of Southern states to attempt to secede from the north, but the action precipitated a war, and this is exactly what is going to happen in Europe sometime after Lisbon.

Many Europeans, not just Brits are hoping (and some are praying) that the Irish vote No again (ha ha they got the wrong answer the first time). We can thank the original constructor of the Irish Constitution for this, Eamon DeValera, who understood the natural tendency for politicians to be treacherous. No other member state since the advent of the Lisbon Treaty (which is really the EU Constitution made to be completely unreadable) have had a vote, previously only France, Netherlands and Spain had a vote, and the first two voted no.

See, the problem with the European Union, is that it is an antidemocratic fascist construct, which is only wanted by multinational corporations and the political/government elites. So NO is not an option.

This poster knows what he is talking about!! At the heart of everything that is wrong with the UK is the dead hand of the European Commission giving our corrupt politicians the opportunity to goldplate some invasive buch of drivel.