waste of bullets, but good riddance anyway.

Laval started political life as a Communist

 

The years immediately before the First World War in France were characterised by widespread labour unrest, and Laval made his mark by defending strikers, trade-unionists, and left-wing agitators against attempts by the authorities to prosecute them. In a trade-union conference, Laval spoke forcefully:

�?/TD>

I am a comrade among comrades, a worker among workers. I am not one of those lawyers who are mindful of their bourgeois origin even when attempting to deny it. I am not one of those high-brow attorneys who engage in academic controversies and pose as intellectuals. I am proud to be what I am. A lawyer in the service of manual laborers who are my comrades, a worker like them, I am their brother. Comrades, I am a manual lawyer.�?SUP>[5]   Laval had been in power for a mere two months when he was faced with the decision of providing forced workers to Germany. Germany was short of skilled labor due to its need for troop replacements on the Russian front. Unlike the other occupied countries, France was technically protected by the armistice and her workers could not be simply rounded up and transported to Germany. However, in the occupied zone, the Germans used intimidation and control of raw materials to create unemployment and thus reasons for French laborers to volunteer to work in Germany. German officials demanded from Laval that more than 300,000 skilled workers should be immediately sent to factories in Germany. Laval stalled, and then countered by offering to send one worker for the return of one French soldier being held captive in Germany. The proposal was sent to Hitler, with a compromise being reached; one prisoner of war to be repatriated for every three workers arriving in Germany.[22]   INTERESTING   The unanswered question is pro Communist De Gaulle

they are everywhere Magna

I went to the curry mile in Manchester today and whilst I was there I witnessed something that got me mighty pissed off indeed. Coming down the street, led by a police car and flanked by two female and two male coppers, was a demonstration by immigrants, all 14 of them, protesting about 'our racist government' 'American aggression' and our policy of returning illegal immigrants. They were carrying two large poxy banners, both proclaiming assocaition to some communist organisation! The tosser at the front had a loud hailer and led the bullshit brigade, calling out the govt to be brought to book. Behind them was a queue a mile long of held up traffic. I couldn't believe it.... our police, not only allowing this mobile obstruction to daily life, but protecting it form the public. I tell ya, I lost my bottle at the sight of it and couldn't hold myself back, so I yelled out....get them off the bloody road and on the pavement, just look at the poor sods queuing behind them, do they deserve this? One of the coppers on the flanks of the rabble looked at me and put his finger to his lips in a gesture for me to be quiet. I was livid, as if the gob at the front of the parade with the loud hailer had dared this stunt in his own dego country, they'd have whipped his bollocks of pronto. I mostly blame the police for allowing this, as I firmly believe if it was a demo by white anti immigrationists, they wouldn't have got five yards, never mind block the road and have a police escort. You know me, I'm a devotee of personal freedoms and protesting is one of them, but this was taking the piss and there's difference.

NO NEED TO GET UP SET MAJOR. FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. NEXT TIME THE MARCH IN A PROTEST JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE ON THE SIDE LINES ARE IN BIGGER NUMBERS AND CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAT THE ONES IN THE MARCH. ALSO TAKE A LOT OF PICTURES ON THE ONES MARCHING AND LET THEM OPENING SEE THAT YOU ARE TAKING THEIR PICTURES. PROTESTERS USUALLY DON'T LIKE THEIR PICTURES TAKEN IN CASE THINGS GO WRONG.

What frosts my cookies is that these protesters can only do this sort of thing, with police protection, in a country whose freedoms were paid for with the blood of their citizens.

You might have aproble there PBA as could it be illegal tom photo a person without consent as a private citizen

 

What they will; do is attack you then claim that's what they believed,

#9 I remember now: really devout Muslims do believe photos are sinful something about the prophet's death before cameras

 

So they will say they attacked you for insulting Islam by photographing them.

Ref # 9. There's no specific law in GB which says you cannot photograph someone on the street, but people have tried to use the all encompassing Human Rights Act to claim it's an invasion of their privacy. If there was such a law no-one would take any holidays snaps.

Mark suppose someone snaps you and Britney, for once, not on the job, and send it to the Mirror with the caption "Mark the Human Love machine and Companion off the job pending overhaul.."

 

Can't you and possibly she get some cash?