If the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were a proper court of law, the charges against him would have been dismissed long ago. Unfortunately, it is a highly politicised organ, created on the initiative of the very states which attacked Yugoslavia in 1999, and whose judges have disgraced themselves by bending the rules to facilitate the prosecution's task. In 2004, the judges imposed defence counsel on Milosevic, even though the ICTY's charter states that defendants have the right to defend themselves, and even though they knew he was too sick to stand trial. On February 24 2006, at the prosecution's insistence, they rejected Milosevic's request to be transferred to a heart clinic: he died a fortnight later.

It is corrosive of the core values of western civilisation for the chief Hague prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, now to say that Milosevic escaped justice by dying, for this assumes that "justice" means not due process but a guilty verdict. The day we start to believe that we will have abandoned the rule of law completely.

I am surprised that a simple internet trawl qualifies as investigative journalism for David Aaronovitch (PR man to Europe's nastiest regimes, G2, November 30), especially since the "trails" he follows about me are ones which I announce at the bottom of my own articles.
But I wonder if Aaronovitch's Googling led him to use as a source an article entitled "Can a lobbyist for dictators work as a journalist?", a recently posted attack on me which is almost identical to his own. The home page, Ukrainian Archive, which has links to all the western-backed "pro-democracy" groups in Ukraine itself, also carries virulently antisemitic articles about the Jewish proclivity for rape, and about how the gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have existed. If I am being simultaneously attacked by a former communist who now supports George Bush's wars, and by raving Jew-baiting Ukrainian nationalists, I must be doing something right.
John Laughland

Why, with half our youngsters going to university, we still need to import migrants to fill all these skilled jobs.

‘That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
‘That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

‘That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

‘That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

‘That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

‘That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

‘That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

‘That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

‘That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

‘And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.’

Or, from the Petition of Right: ‘No freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.’

All of this led to the USA's even harder, clearer and more codifed defences of free debate, protection against arbitrary arrest and the punitive billeting of troops, not to mention the right to bear arms which, technically, all British subjects still possess (though see my 'Brief History of Crime' for a discussion of how this important liberty has been bureaucratically revoked by stealth). And that is why, despite a startling Germanic culture of bureaucracy and over-willing acceptance of authority, English liberty has survived as well as it has (though now much under threat) in the USA. It has also survived (in different conditions and with different) in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The simple point is that humans can only be free where the state is restrained. 'Human Rights' being an attempt to codify a secular morality on the basis of competing group rights, actually strengthens the state by making the courts the umpires in this competition. It also gives the courts the power to legislate, because its showy vagueness allows them to 'interpret' various phrases to their own satisfaction.

Now, it is true that the US Supreme Court has managed to do this with bits of the Bill of Rights, notably the phrase 'cruel and unusual' (itself taken from the 1689 English Bill). But this is obviously intellectually shabby, as no serious person could imagine that the men who drafted this thought that the death penalty was cruel or unusual, or intended that meaning to be conveyed. But it is so much easier to do with the various universal declarations, European Conventions, Canadian Charters and now the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This last is full of horrible weasel phrases whose effect is often quite different in practice from its apparent meaning. Nobody may be deprived of his possessions ‘except in the public interest’ (Article 17) which is as tough as wet tissue-paper. The rights of freedom of expression and to privacy ('private life') inevitably conflict. The right to marry and found a family conflict with non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, which alter the meaning and status of the word 'marry'. The promises of religious 'diversity' make all faiths equal, thus diminishing the role of the one faith which has actually defined Europe and shaped its distinctive civilisation- Christianity.

For example, he argued that the loss of 100,000 public sector jobs would not have a huge impact on a 30 million-strong job market. We predicted yesterday that this comment would prove inflammatory; that does not invalidate the observation. As for Lord Young’s point that the cuts will only reduce government spending to 2007 levels, that falls into the category of speaking truth unto power. It casts doubt on both the Coalition’s references to a bold reduction in the size of the state and hysterical Left-wing claims that the public sector is being dismantled.

Is Jim DeMint fiscally conservative when it comes to fighting neverending wars and bailing out his vampire bats buddies in Wall Street?

Or does he just hate it when the poorest and the unemployed to have food on the table while having sex and not being married?

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Medical Law


This question of medical law concerns the specific issue of abortion law in the UK, with the other relevant legal system being the ECHR. Since the Abortion Act 1967, abortion has become more widespread in England and Wales.
The law provides a defence to medical practitioners carrying out abortions. The main condition to be satisfied before an abortion should be performed is that continuing with the pregnancy presents more of a risk to the mother/existing children’s physical/mental health than an abortion. An abortion might also be carried out when there is a substantial risk the child may be born with physical/mental abnormalities. The reality is that abortion is now easily obtainable in the UK. Do we now have de facto abortion on demand?
Within this context, there are those who argue that a simple, plain language reading of Article 2 ECHR would prohibit abortion unless much more serious and stringent conditions were to apply. Note that this is the case in certain other ECHR jurisdictions.

The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 does not specifically prohibit abortion. However, Article 2 seems to suggest the unborn child enjoys a right to life.
Critically analyse how in the context of abortion UK law balances the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother?
Guidance notes:

Introduction
The question is naturally focused on legal answers, but be aware that at least part of your analysis is going to have to address the policy and public perceptions challenges – in other words, what are the different arguments for emphasising the rights of the mother over the unborn child and vice versa? A comparative analysis with other jurisdictions will be particularly useful, both within the European continent, but also around the world.

Main Body
You may want to consider UK statute and case law on this issue.
There is some significant ECtHR jurisprudence as well as EU cases (particularly dealing with free movement rights).
There are regular proposals for reform which should be articulated. Consider what the proposers of reform are trying to achieve and why the reforms have not been adopted. You might also consider public opinion and what the prospects for future reform may be.
You should avoid getting bogged down solely in medical matters, such as when a foetus becomes a child. Although medical factors are important to answering the question and may be briefly considered.
You might also consider the arguments and concerns that are introduced by religious considerations. Different religions have different approaches to abortion, based on different definitions of the foetus and a different balancing of the rights of the two individuals.


Conclusion
We would expect some form of conclusion, there is no single answer to the question and the candidates should present an educated research analysis. Your conclusion is up to you. You should not be afraid of arguing for the position you feel passionately about, but it must be a legal argument, based on analysis and logic rather than emotion.

Riots in a free country are always just a bit of fun for those taking part.

'the cool, grown-up contempt many of today’s young feel for their babyish, spoiled, Sixties-generation parents.'
The 'spoilt boomer' myth is largely the creation of columnists such as Peter, who are in the small minority of UK baby boomers who were upper middle class and university educated. The vast majority of my generation left school at 15 or 16 and knuckled down to an apprenticeship or trade course rather than being drug-addled campus Marxist activists.
Spoilt? For crying out loud, UK boomers were born into post-war austerity! Rationing still existed until 1954 when I appeared. Lots of ordinary people didn't even indoor loos! There were housing shortages (possibly not unrelated to the recent blitz). Cars and TV sets were still luxury items in the 50s and early 60s.
Oh, and our World War 2 era parents and teachers were mostly firm disciplinarians who smacked and caned. Far from being 'babyish' , boomer youngsters were expected to be self-sufficient and self-disciplined.

Speaking as a former student rioter, who has repented of his ways, I would advise the Government to pay absolutely no attention to such people – let alone to accept the baloney that such events, mostly involving sons of the suburbs, are a sign of real discontent. Riots in free countries are not deep expressions of woe or oppression. They are a bit of fun for those taking part.

Edward Miliband and his Unwife are pictured with their new baby in posed shots. Father and mother are both, weirdly, wearing Remembrance Poppies on their indoor clothes (in her case, possibly her nightie).
Some questions arise. Why isn’t the baby wearing one? And are we supposed to believe that these people – one the atheist scion of one of Britain’s most glacially Marxist families, the other a pointedly unmarried London trendy – are wearing poppies because of their conservative pro-military patriotism? Or because the British Left have decided that this is a good way to try to fool people that they are really normal?
Personally I prefer the honest position taken by Channel 4 News’s Jon Snow, who says he will wear his poppy in church but not on TV.
In these days when parliamentary whips hand out poppies to MPs, and the BBC hands them out to guests, they are no longer a sign that you have given to the British Legion. So not wearing one (and this year I started to do so only on Thursday)
is not a sign that you haven’t given.

Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on.

Rather than looking at popular culture as a free exchange of ideas; a vast heterogeneous construction, Homi Bhabha’s notion of “hybridity” , rather he sees cultural development as the combined product of deliberate imposition by dominant forms and the marginalisation of cultural forms which do not coincide with the dominant order. Showing scepticism characteristic of conservative thinkers he describes this process as being disguised as “reform” and in the “best interests” of the people. This idea of a super imposed cultural transformation in the face of resistance, but presented as a transparent and natural part of “modernisation” may have been borrowed and expanded by other socialist writers and thinkers such as Naomi Klein. In the Shock Doctrine Klein argues that neo-liberal economic policies have been imposed on cultures in times of chaos, when people are “psychologically unmoored and physically uprooted” these proponents of change “begin their work of remaking the world” without consulting the people whose lives they are affecting.

This point of agreement between speakers from two sides of a notoriously polarised debate is particularly noteworthy in that the speakers find themselves joined together in taking a position which is starkly opposed to public opinion. Opinion polls have consistently found that people consider termination more acceptable in the presence of a disability (Lee and Davey, 1998, Lee 2000). Furthermore, their view is also out of line with contemporary abortion practice: between 1500 and 2000 terminations per year are performed for reason of fetal disability, with several hundred of them occurring after 20 weeks gestation.

Still more interesting is the fact that both speakers find themselves in broad disagreement with the current law in England, Wales and Scotland. The 1967 Abortion Act provides that terminations are only lawful where performed by a registered medical practitioner, and where two doctors agree that one of a number of conditions is met. One of these conditions, set out in s.1(1)(d) of the Act, is that abortion may be authorised by two doctors who agree that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would be 'seriously handicapped'. Since 1990, there have been no time limits for terminations performed on this ground. Likewise, the existence of a presumed fetal disability is also relevant in Northern Ireland, where the Abortion Act 1967 does not apply. Such terminations as are carried out there are done on the basis of R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 612, which holds that a doctor may lawfully perform a termination where 'the probable consequences of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical and mental wreck'. Whilst it is not obvious that this should more readily support terminations on the basis of abnormality than on other grounds, nonetheless the majority of the terminations performed in Northern Ireland each year are performed for this reason (Lee 1995).

In fact, some men want the best of both worlds: a bit of fun with western women, then settling down with a traditional local woman.

Not some men, a lot of men. Exactly the same as muslims/arabs in the UK. They want all the things that they despise about the west: women, alcohol, drugs, gambling, but feel no shame in becoming a proper intolerant muslim later in life.

“Pep, zing, oomph, ker-ching. CoQ10.” March 15 2008. Sample quote: “Because they cannot find new treatments for diseases we already have, they invent new diseases for treatments they already have. Favourites include social anxiety disorder (SSRIs) and female sexual dysfunction (Viagra): problems, in a very real sense, but not necessarily the stuff of pills.”
“All bow before the might of the placebo effect, it is the coolest strangest thing in medicine” March 1 2008, about antidepressants, amongst other things.
“A quick fix would stop drug firms bending the truth” February 26 2008, critical of clinical trials of SSRIs, and regulation of the pharmaceutical industry in general.
“Washing the numbers, selling the model” January 26 2008, again about clinical trials of SSRIs.
“More than molecules – how pill pushers and the media medicalise social problems”, an audio lecture from January 2 2008

Don't assert your superiority. Others may not agree.
Don't advertise your shortcomings, others may not notice them.

Direct intention and foresight are different states of mind, in the
same way that love is different from acquisitiveness. Proving that a person foresees
a consequence as probable/highly probable is no more conclusive of an intention to
produce that consequence than counting an art dealer’s acquisitions can establish
his love of art. However much the dealer acquires the possibility is that he hates
art, but loves accumulating wealth. Similarly, direct intention cannot conclusively
be inferred from mere foresight of probability. It may help us make a pretty good
guess but guesswork is not the stuff of criminal convictions. Suggesting otherwise
fatally conflates intention and recklessness

Criticising the President in person is now specifically illegal, under Article 318 of the Kazakh criminal code. Even before this law came into force, writing a story for a magazine about the President’s private wealth earned my informant a menacing visit from the KNB, more or less the successor of the old Soviet KGB, but without the charm.

Monday
1. Squats or Leg press
2. Leg Extensions
3. Leg Curls
(women: for tighter buttocks replace 2 & 3 with Lunges)
4. Standing Calf Raise
5. Abdominal Leg Raises
Wednesday
1. Incline Bench Press (barbell or dumbbell)
2. Close Grip Bench Press (barbell)
3. Behind Neck Shoulder Press (dumbbell or barbell)
4. Side Lateral Raises
5. Dumbbell Biceps Curl
Friday
1. Shoulder Width Lat Pulldown
2. Close Grip Seated Pulley Row
3. Triceps Push Down
4. Crunches
5. Hyper Extensions
6. Shrugs

Noun - bien pensant (plural bien pensants)

1.A person who is bien pensant.
2.Someone who accepts and or espouses a fashionable idea after it has been established and maintains it without a great amount of critical thought.

There was a long apologia for the EU from Flackstein who thought it all a good thing and asked for an example of it behaving as a totalitarian dictatorship. Well, he might tell us how the British people may, by a democratic process, sack the Commission and replace it by one more to our taste. That body has the power to make laws we must obey. How do we change it or them? Nor was he right to say that we had a referendumn on the EU. We had a referendumn on whether to accept the renegotiated terms on which we had entered the European Economic Community.

Human Rights champ, the new Peter Tatchell.

What if someone was to say, a leader would emerge in Iran, an opposition leader, with genuine support among the intellectuals and — inaudible — and the downtrodden workers and peasants, who was to say, you know what? I’ve never believed a word of this story about the upcoming 12th imam and his reappearance and his bringing of a reign of peace and redemption to the whole human race. I think that’s an absolute fairy story, I think that’s got about as much chance of being true as Santa Claus. Would you not be rather relieved to hear that there was such a person? I submit that you most certainly would.

If you heard today that Bibi Netanyahu on yet another of his fraudulent trips to Washington to humiliate our president and our Congress had dispensed with the services of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the religious partnership in his coalition, who calls for God to smite the Palestinians with a plague, for example — that this man no longer appointed the person who is in charge of housing and settlements, which a matter of fact, he does. Would you not think that was a step in the right direction? I submit that you would.

So it may be rude to leave you with a question rather than proposing an answer, but I think you’ll see why I have done so, and I now make way for a younger and more principled generation.