Amat_victoria_curam wrote:My bad, I just had a final exam in international law in crisis and conflict covering these questions and pathetically thought I would actually get some interesting viewpoints. Clearly I was fucking wrong.
Yeah, I don't post much, I'm mainly a reader (except when I've got the time) but am on to something if I say that you just accused me of being Penta in disguise? Is that on account of pointing out that the current judicial human rights systems are seriously flawed? In that case you are mistaking an observation for a political opinion. I'm in security politics, I don't have to mean what I say.
No, no, no and again no. You have it all wrong. Let's recap:
1. I'm sorry. I was being a tit - alcohol induced but a tit nevertheless. I think this is my first online apology. Hold the front page.
2. The Penta red herring is designed to take the piss out of me getting wound up because I invoked the 'C' word. No one is suggesting you are Penta.
In short - you made a perfectly reasonable and educated intervention. I shortcircuited any sensible discussion by calling you a cunt - which as an observer of BFC culture you should realise is practically a term of affection. A few people in the bleachers tittered at me for doing so and invoked the ghost of Penta (which by the way Mikeymike misses the point that I wound her up more than she wound me up, and anyway, who is still standing?)
Wait, I just read that you're in politics... I take back my apology. Nah, you can still have it.
On the matter in hand I do not agree that any organization should impose its norms and values and laws over the laws enshrined by a nation. That is the gateway to totalitarianism. Separation of the executive and the judiciary should be a national, not supra-national issue.