• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "God bless the queen"

Collapse

  • minestrone
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggressiona) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

    You are Irish FFS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggressiona) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Bliar is a tax dodger that makes Brillo look innocent
    I don't think you would pass a fit and proper person test to be involved in anyones's judicial verdict.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Bliar is a tax dodger that makes Brillo look innocent

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    OG is a lefty. Trials aren't needed. Blair betrayed the left - ergo "war criminal".
    I didn’t say he was a convicted criminal, you cretin.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
    Where in the article does it say this?
    OG is a lefty. Trials aren't needed. Blair betrayed the left - ergo "war criminal".

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Classic royals. Seemingly unbothered that he’s a war criminal, but holding a grudge over Diana.
    Where in the article does it say this?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Wanting to be El Presidente is much more sensible and it gets my goat!
    FTFY

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Do you really have to ask?
    It's me, obviously.
    Always thought you were a bit of an anarchist given your constant moaning about politicians. Wanting to be dictator is much more sensible but you'll have to fight me for the position!

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by Colour Sergeant Bourne View Post
    Aye another Cromwell as Lord Protector should do the trick
    Michel Barnier would do a decent job.

    Leave a comment:


  • Colour Sergeant Bourne
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    time to stop this foolish experiment and return back to what really made Britain Great!
    Aye another Cromwell as Lord Protector should do the trick

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    So who was your favourite pre-democracy leader then atW? Henry VIII maybe?
    Do you really have to ask?

    It's me, obviously.

    A better question is: who is my fourth favourite pro-democracy leader...

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    major decline in quality of leaders generated by that democracy malarkey, which clearly gone off rails, time to stop this foolish experiment and return back to what really made Britain Great!
    So who was your favourite pre-democracy leader then atW? Henry VIII maybe?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    I reckon Camooron won't be particularly populat either.

    Or Boris.

    Considering She knew Churchill (the good one, not ours) personally this represents a major decline in quality of leaders generated by that democracy malarkey, which clearly gone off rails, time to stop this foolish experiment and return back to what really made Britain Great!

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    As Commander-in-Chief, she might feel personally affected, even if constitutionally she doesn’t wield any power or command.
    We are truly blessed to have her Royal Majesty.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X