The debate SHOULD centre on the concept of harm and whether this can be quantified.

If it cannot, then all drugs should be legalised and criminals who commit crimes while intoxicated and addicted treated more harshly.

This would be the fairest way since harm to the public would then have manifested itself in criminal behaviour and thus become objectively measurable.

It took years of campaigning and appeals to correct the wrongs perpetrated by the Gene Hunt method of police investigation, and times have thankfully changed for the better.

Sadly you are very much mistaken here. See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6892830.ece for the latest example, again thanks to Alan Johnston. Once a Marxist, always a Marxist. Example scenario: someone copies your number plate and runs up a few thousand in London Congestion charges and penalties. You either immediately pay or else they use the POCA to freeze your bank accounts, raid your home etc. The agencies involved (TfL in this example, or a private debt collector they contract to) and hence their staff (e.g. via performance related pay) gets commission on what they seize, so there is no possibility of an objective decision. So much for Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

I think there’s a new blog post in this, thanks!

You mentionned it yourself in an earlier post that continents should perhaps be divided in terms of civilisation, if I remember rightly.

Dear irish people!

Pleace stop the treaty of lisbon! Is is antidemocartic, militaristic, antisocial. The disadvantages are much bigger, than the advantages. The EU can live with its actuell laws. They should only be changed into a democratic direction. With the treaty of lisbon, the european council is able to change this treaty in great parts without asking the parliament. This is nearly the same law, which mades the nationl- rassistic- party of Germany so powerfull in our country in the year 1933. Our basic law (the german constitution) and all other european constitutions should not be replaced by the treaty of lisbon. But the new treaty tries to bring all right- sytstems in a lower level than the new european right. Here is my informationpage: http://sites.google.com/site/euradevormwald/english . When you have some more english information, pleace send me a link or text or write it into the visitors book of my page. And pleace spread this text all over Ireland.

In the hope in your activities for a better Europe, Felix Staratschek, Freiligrathstr. 2, D- 42477 Radevormwald (Germany)

Apologies for not replying to your recent question on slugger about the value of comprehensives, etc, I have been pushed for time of late but intent to return to this subject next month on my blog; and will deal with your question then.

Best regards

Mick Hall

SOLUTION….
The world needs to understand that Britain is indeed ‘united’, however the flag should also show that we are not ‘controlled’ by England. Its incredibly simple…divide the flag space into four, place the welsh flag in the bottom left quarter, the irish above it, the Scottish in the upper right quarter and the English in the lower right corner i.e. as they are geographically situated. A complex flax yes, but Britian is complex!

Er, I was under the impression that a MnUE was what we were getting. I have never advocated a sovereign European superstate.

Anyway, these last two posts were more of an academic exercise than an actual proposal.

Actually merging or sharing an agency would be a change in sovereignty

I disagree. We already have shared agencies, such as tourismireland.com and I never heard anyone (not even Jim Allister) say this amounted to sovereignty transfer.

Several shared agencies already exist, and a MnUI would see these expanded to cover a wide spectrum of policy areas.

I’m a bit confused about this part. Under a MnUI, the national agencies would co-operate to implement identical (or at least compatible) policies, but would not actually be shared. Actually merging or sharing an agency would be a change in sovereignty, with the problems of funding and oversight you mentioned.