phart

Ridgeback's

Dog Trainer in Linlithgow has 3 of them, beautiful braw dugs.

Weirdly i was speaking to someone with a Northern Inuit on tuesday. If I had all the time and could pick I would get a pair of Basset Hounds.

We're not launching subs though, it's the delivery system and warhead that are the problem. Also the subs will probably be under NATO command at war anyway.,.

so to stop "cowering" you pay billions then you're the big man. Falling for the political example of dick enlarging pills adverts. It's pathetic. no nukes please.

I see they carried out the most comprehensive "wellbeing" psychological report and guess the top two occupations? social work and teaching.

Landis interview. http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/hell-always-have-paris-floyd-landis-returns-to-the-tour-de-france/

Is it not John Swinney doing this? Folk going on about someone having no kids or it's an indoctrination programme can be pigeonholed with those that think it's a wee bit of legislation and ignored on the subject. Those that worry about the implications for abuse of power, scapegoating , less government etc, or who think it will be good for protecting children is just a rubberstamp for existing practices can discuss it rationally. The people actually opposing it aren't opposed to the aims of the scheme merely the practices of it. The Christian Institute co-ordinated the legal action and director Colin Hart said after the decision was announced: “We all accept the good intentions behind this law but a universal data-gathering scheme like this was always going to cause major problems. I have no idea what mentalists you guys have been looking at, fortunately i haven't seen anything bar what's been reproduced here. Just ignore those folk they don't understand the subject.

Loads of testimony from whistleblowers and Dr ashenden that actually despite what Mathew Syned says they are terrified of coming forward. Actually most anti-doping is done by the police or whistleblowers. Festina was border controls, armstrong refused to give Landis a ride on his team so he grassed him up, then Lance came back and got caught. Beating the tests is the "easy" bit. or just get a TUE. Most major breakthroughs are normally someone speaking out.

Wow whistleblowers, trainers and everything are getting into Syned for his article. it seems those who have spent time trying to get a clean sport think it's harmful and ignorant.

Tucker replies, not read it yet (just about to, but putting it up first) http://sportsscientists.com/2016/07/fixed-matthew-syed-dismissal-whistleblower-fears/

So the existing processes must be illegal then as per the ruling yesterday?

I don't think this is an indoctrination programme to make folk vote for independence lol. It's a poorly developed idea which contravenes certain aspects of law, and totally underestimates the extra work already overworked people will have to do. Mainly the education sector which is already in the grip of a stress epidemic.

me and Brian smith

If we have similar schemes on the go, how do we know they aren't in breach of article 8 of ECHR? Have they been tested in the same manner, or just been arbitrarily created?

The facebook link above doesn't work for me. You're linking to a close grp on facebook, i fecked about a bit with the link to get access.

Reason has abandoned this place.

I've read both the act and the supreme court judgement. The 5 judges of the supreme court unanimously said " “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.” also " The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Has it not been explained properly to them? Ascribing ignorance and outrage where it doesn't exist is wrong. I'm not sure the relevance of another scheme which is not this scheme running in the highlands, bar to wonder what it is about the highlands that makes these things be started there (see guns and the police,open market shared equity scheme etc)

Also i'm aware it's a lot easier to question the motives of either side rather than read the act and court judgement and make informed opinions. They aren't equal positions though. Just a wee Public service announcement.

What minor piece of legislation?We talking about something else now? Cause the one i'm discussing would require a change in the ECHR to make it compatible, it would require a change to the Scotland Act to be implementable. I can't speak for any majority(outside my own circle) but the vast majority of folk I know with children have discussed it in depth. it will affect 1 million people off the bat, It also covers every single person born and bred in Scotland in perpetuity. If you think it's minor then you've been misinformed of the contents of it. That's without going into the fecked up metaphor about snakes "spitefully" biting folk cause they realise they are dying? I think you're anthropomorphising the Serpentes. As i say I don't know what nonsense the other parties are saying or why they're saying this. This is a shit piece of legislation though. An interesting question is this, Since the Act has to be amended to comply, can it still fulfill it's intended function? If it can't then what use is it? If it can then why the need to try and circumvent Article 8 of the ECHR in the first place?

If you're using the persons nationality to judge the words rather than the contents then it doesn't really matter what you type. Ah the Rangers and Celtic excuse for doing shit in europe if the opposition was better so would we be. It's certainly a possibility, iron sharpens iron and all that. However loads of folk were pointing out it was invasive beforehand, it wasn't a case of folk waving it through so it never got challenged and was inherently weak because of that. That Christian group have been on about it since Feb 2014. Their first objection was " It is clear that this Bill breaches European rules through its attack on the family. ". Which is exactly what got it declared unlawful. The SNP response said (again back in 2014) " A Scottish government spokesman said it was “confident” the legislation complied with the ECHR and families are not forced to accept the advice or help from the namedperson. " So on the exact point of contention the stance has been the same for 30 months.

Just finished reading it. It was called "defective" by the Judges, so not sure how it could be construed as largely supportive. It breached article 8 of ECHR and also was beyond the scope and power of the enacting government. The aims were largely supported the methods were deemed as breaching human right laws and there was no authority to do so anyway. I have no idea what the Media is saying about it or how folk on twitter are spinning it to their own ends. I dont even see that nonsense. As i said this is a shit piece of legislation so i'm against it. My interpretation which might be nonsense is it "failed" on article 8 and not exceeding the authority of our Parliament. It was a unanimous decision by the 5 Judges. I also liked the judges spoke on the matter of totalitarian governments. “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.” and later on citing the Supreme court in the US. "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

I was just logging off to take my gran out for some Italian Coffee (I'm in the process of conceding those coffee machines might be pretty good) " You are the poster boy for everything that makes labour the basket case party of the decade and who knows you may actually die. I hope so." the "you" was what made me think what I did. Let's be honest there shouldn't be any political parties it creates split loyalties off the back and is open for nepotism etc.

Wishing folk die over political beliefs is sort of what is wrong with the world as well.

It's a shit idea. Don't enact shit ideas. " Rejected the petitioners’ argument that the legislation relates to reserved matters " so does this mean it needs UK approval then? It's not a "reserved" matter, is "reserved" a synonym for "devolved" in this case? Reading the actual document it states " This appeal concerns the question whether the provisions of Part 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) A ct 2014 lie within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament." However i'm away to take my gran out for coffee, so i'll come back to it, and maybe even sort out this formatting