People cannot debate traditional issues because of liberal 'censoriousness', says Lord Neuberger

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10696507/People-cannot-debate-traditional-issues-because-of-liberal-censoriousness-says-Lord-Neuberger.html
Traditional attitudes to issues such as sexuality are being shut out of debate by a new form of liberal “censoriousness” which only allows “inoffensive” opinions to be heard in public, Britain’s most senior judge has warned.


Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said that Britain could be becoming less diverse rather than more because once common opinions are now deemed “unacceptable”.


He likened the new form of “moral reaction” to the opposite but equally restrictive attitudes of previous generations.


The judge also warned that the children of Britain's elite will have to settle for worse jobs than their parents in coming years.


His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons in which he spoke about improving representation of minorities including women, ethnic minorities, gay people and those from poorer backgrounds in the law and other professions.


Related Articles
Judges should be discouraged from allowing cases to be heard in private, says head of Supreme Court
05 Mar 2014
Why always footballers who take out gagging orders, asks top judge
03 Mar 2014
Why is it always footballers who take out gagging orders, asks top judge
03 Mar 2014
Theresa May failed to 'put up a fight' to deport foreign killer
11 Jan 2014
Supreme Court rules will is valid despite admin error
23 Jan 2014
Sarosh Zaiwalla: the first non-white lawyer to start a practice in the City
02 Feb 2014


But he said that in the area of sexual attitudes, attempts to improve diversity risked bringing a new restrictiveness of their own.

It follows complaints from traditionalists who opposed gay marriage that they were unfairly being treated as homophobic because of their stance on matrimony.

At the height of the debate over the issue, a housing trust manager from Trafford, Greater Manchester, was demoted from his job and accused of discrimination because he said in a private Facebook posting that he thought same-sex weddings in churches were a step too far.

Lord Neuberger said: “A tendency appears to be growing in some quarters which is antithetical to diversity in a rather indirect and insidious way."

In a reference to the Larkin poem Annus Mirabilis, which jokes that “sexual intercourse began in 1963”, he added: “As Phillip Larkin suggested in his famous poem, 1963 heralded a rather permissive period, partly no doubt in reaction to the very conventional and straight-laced post-World War Two outlook.

“Possibly as a counter-reaction to the permissive society, a combination of political correctness and moral reaction appears to be developing.

“While I have no wish to comment on, let alone criticise, this development, I fear that it may risk spilling over into a censoriousness about what views people can publicly air as to the merits of diversity or other issues which indirectly relate to diversity.

“As has been said on more than one occasion, freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having.

“The more that arguments and views are shut out as unacceptable the less diverse we risk becoming in terms of outlook.

“And the less diverse we become in terms of outlook, the more we risk not valuing diversity and the more we therefore risk losing diversity in practice.”

Lord Neuberger also said increased social mobility and the economic downturn would be "painful" for the "sons and daughters of those at the top".

He said: "Now that we have an economy that is expanding more slowly; consequently, improving diversity in the higher levels through increased social mobility is much more difficult, because the number of available jobs is hardly expanding.

"And increased social mobility is potentially much more painful, because, if the top echelon of jobs remains static, it is logically inevitable that the sons and daughters of those at the top will have to go down the snakes in order to enable those from less privileged backgrounds to go up the ladders."

What a rather good well argued opinion. I know straight away that the left on here will wish to censor his opinion.

Try and remember which persona you are using Drinky won't you.

Anybody "afraid" of debating the strength that comes from diversity is either uninformed about those strengths or knows they'll be labeled a bigot for claiming diversity is a weakness.

Sassy wrote:Try and remember which persona you are using Drinky won't you.

  ....He's never been the sharpest tool in the box, perhaps he should get his wife to help him!   

Sassy wrote:Try and remember which persona you are using Drinky won't you.

Anything to say about the article FA? Does it matter who posts or what is posted?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody "afraid" of debating the strength that comes from diversity is either uninformed about those strengths or knows they'll be labeled a bigot for claiming diversity is a weakness.

That the left seek to rewrite the language is a real issue. That someone can lose their job or be demoted for expressing concerns about same sex marraige is also a real concern. It doesn't matter what is being said in a free society it is unreasonable for the left to hold someones job to ransom because they express views which are out of date.

The Nazis had similar views about censorship and treated people in a similar manner.

kevins58 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody "afraid" of debating the strength that comes from diversity is either uninformed about those strengths or knows they'll be labeled a bigot for claiming diversity is a weakness.

That the left seek to rewrite the language is a real issue. That someone can lose their job or be demoted for expressing concerns about same sex marraige is also a real concern. It doesn't matter what is being said in a free society it is unreasonable for the left to hold someones job to ransom because they express views which are out of date.

The Nazis had similar views about censorship and treated people in a similar manner.

Boo-fucking-hoo, people in the States can still get fired for being gay. Which is worse -- getting fired because someone finds out a trait you were born with, or getting fired because you can't stop popping off at the mouth about how much you hate gay marriage while you're supposed to be doing your job?

Jesus Cheeerist.  Give drinky a $7-word, and he's all over it.

He's talking about porn, drinky. Are you for it?

Original Quill wrote:Jesus Cheeerist.  Give drinky a $7-word, and he's all over it.

He's talking about porn, drinky.  Are you for it?

Off course.

I might add he is talking about a lot more than Porn clearly it is an obsession of yours perhaps.

Give you an inch and you are the most pretentious prat this side of the Mississippi. It must be wonderful going through life thinking everyone is in awe of ones intellect.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

kevins58 wrote:

That the left seek to rewrite the language is a real issue. That someone can lose their job or be demoted for expressing concerns about same sex marraige is also a real concern. It doesn't matter what is being said in a free society it is unreasonable for the left to hold someones job to ransom because they express views which are out of date.

The Nazis had similar views about censorship and treated people in a similar manner.

Boo-fucking-hoo, people in the States can still get fired for being gay. Which is worse -- getting fired because someone finds out a trait you were born with, or getting fired because you can't stop popping off at the mouth about how much you hate gay marriage while you're supposed to be doing your job?

He did not pop off at the mouth about hating gay marriage while supposed to be working. He made a comment on facebook during his own time when not working expressing being unsure with how far gay marriage would go - and as his facebook was set to private only his "friends" could see it - and a work colleague he had accepted as a friend reported him for it.

I do not think it acceptable for people to be fired because they are gay - do you think it acceptable for people to fired for comments made on their own time to a group of friends supposedly in private?

the PC world makes certain debate impossible, that is for sure...  

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Boo-fucking-hoo, people in the States can still get fired for being gay. Which is worse -- getting fired because someone finds out a trait you were born with, or getting fired because you can't stop popping off at the mouth about how much you hate gay marriage while you're supposed to be doing your job?

He did not pop off at the mouth about hating gay marriage while supposed to be working.  He made a comment on facebook during his own time when not working expressing being unsure with how far gay marriage would go - and as his facebook was set to private only his "friends" could see it - and a work colleague he had accepted as a friend reported him for it.

I do not think it acceptable for people to be fired because they are gay - do you think it acceptable for people to fired for comments made on their own time to a group of friends supposedly in private?

The line is clear for the likes of |Ben you may have as much free speech as you like as long as you say it how we want you to. Cross the line and you are out..

Ben no one on here would agree with an employer firing someone for being gay it is abhorrent. However someone expressing a view that single sex marriage is a bridge too far is not unreasonable. We can agree to disagree but not demote the bloke.

Can't you see they are two sides of the same coin. Both are bigoted. i.e. American employers and the Housing corp. In a free country free speech means just that. It can not be determined as free if a Liberal class determine what can and what cannot be said by persons with opposing views.

I might add had that employee been a Muslim expressing such views he would not have been challenged at all.

kevins58 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

He did not pop off at the mouth about hating gay marriage while supposed to be working.  He made a comment on facebook during his own time when not working expressing being unsure with how far gay marriage would go - and as his facebook was set to private only his "friends" could see it - and a work colleague he had accepted as a friend reported him for it.

I do not think it acceptable for people to be fired because they are gay - do you think it acceptable for people to fired for comments made on their own time to a group of friends supposedly in private?

The line is clear for the likes of |Ben you may have as much free speech as you like as long as you say it how we want you to. Cross the line and you are out..

Ben no one on here would agree with an employer firing someone for being gay it is abhorrent. However someone expressing a view that single sex marriage is a bridge too far is not unreasonable. We can agree to disagree but not demote the bloke.

Can't you see they are two sides of the same coin. Both are bigoted.

the bigots cannot see they are bigots, try talking to didge and see its ideas of equality...  

great post by the way..

Didge has the ability to agree with only himself. He occasionally manages to be a lefty but will always revert to Didge i.e. everyone but himself is wrong.

He should have had the moniker Lone Wolf. Maybe lone sheep. The Geoffrey Howe thing.

kevins58 wrote:Didge has the ability to agree with only himself. He occasionally manages to be a lefty but will always revert to Didge i.e. everyone but himself is wrong.

He should have had the moniker Lone Wolf. Maybe lone sheep. The Geoffrey Howe thing.

He is constantly telling me he is a Conservative.

gerber wrote:

kevins58 wrote:Didge has the ability to agree with only himself. He occasionally manages to be a lefty but will always revert to Didge i.e. everyone but himself is wrong.

He should have had the moniker Lone Wolf. Maybe lone sheep. The Geoffrey Howe thing.

He is constantly telling me he is a Conservative.

I know he says he is Gerber its just that he acts like a limp wristed lefty. That said he falls out with everyone equally so he must be balanced I suppose.

Oh bless comments about me, showing a lack of ability to debate mine so instead posters act like 3 year olds


Love it

Yes I am conservative, maybe you can shown me what Tory policies I do not agree with Gerber, because many of them I do


Over to you

PhilDidge wrote:Oh bless comments about me, showing a lack of ability to debate mine so instead posters act like 3 year olds


Love it

Yes I am conservative, maybe you can shown me what Tory policies I do not agree with Gerber, because many of them I do


Over to you

There you have it Didge I said to me you don't appear very Tory. You see that is an opinion based on your writings. It is an opinion we are allowed them as well Didge. It isn't the act of a 3 year old to express an opinion. Correction I suppose they can actually. So can 58 year olds.

kevins58 wrote:

gerber wrote:

He is constantly telling me he is a Conservative.

I know he says he is Gerber its just that he acts like a limp wristed lefty. That said he falls out with everyone equally so he must be balanced I suppose.

Didge is massively RW on economic issues; the issues that ACTUALLY define LW and RW politics. His views on the NHS, welfare etc are very conservative.

On social issues though, he actually gives a shit about other people not like himself; I call it being a nice person- if you call that being a 'limp wristed lefty' well then so be it. I call the opposite knobheads  

kevins58 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Oh bless comments about me, showing a lack of ability to debate mine so instead posters act like 3 year olds


Love it

Yes I am conservative, maybe you can shown me what Tory policies I do not agree with Gerber, because many of them I do


Over to you

There you have it Didge I said to me you don't appear very Tory. You see that is an opinion based on your writings.  It is an opinion we are allowed them as well Didge. It isn't the act of a 3 year old to express an opinion. Correction I suppose they can actually. So can 58 year olds.

There you go, unable to back up your points.

Do the tories want to negoatiate with the EU?

Yes and I back this.

Do they want to have a referendum?

Yes and I back this.

So again you have failed to show what views I do not back of the Tories and again acting like a 3 year old, because you cannot back your argument up, showing you are acting like a brat more than an adult.

So again back up your stance which you know you cannot

Eilzel wrote:

kevins58 wrote:

I know he says he is Gerber its just that he acts like a limp wristed lefty. That said he falls out with everyone equally so he must be balanced I suppose.

Didge is massively RW on economic issues; the issues that ACTUALLY define LW and RW politics. His views on the NHS, welfare etc are very conservative.

On social issues though, he actually gives a shit about other people not like himself; I call it being a nice person- if you called left being a 'limp wristed lefty' well then so be it. I call the opposite knobheads   

Hi Eilzel

This is just drinky spitting his dummy out, I am not allowed to be on the fence with the EU I must be anti, which is not the Tory party view, the fact is he cannot back his claims to me being left and is as bad as catman now here with his arguments, I must be left because my views are not right of Genghis Khan to him

PhilDidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge is massively RW on economic issues; the issues that ACTUALLY define LW and RW politics. His views on the NHS, welfare etc are very conservative.

On social issues though, he actually gives a shit about other people not like himself; I call it being a nice person- if you called left being a 'limp wristed lefty' well then so be it. I call the opposite knobheads   

Hi Eilzel

This is just drinky spitting his dummy out, I am not allowed to be on the fence with the EU I must be anti, which is not the Tory party view, the fact is he cannot back his claims to me being left and is as bad as catman now here with his arguments, I must be left because my views are not right of Genghis Khan to him

7

Yep, but he will never see himself as being far to the Right; he is just as bad as the caricatures he sets up to argue with...

Eilzel wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hi Eilzel

This is just drinky spitting his dummy out, I am not allowed to be on the fence with the EU I must be anti, which is not the Tory party view, the fact is he cannot back his claims to me being left and is as bad as catman now here with his arguments, I must be left because my views are not right of Genghis Khan to him

7

Yep, but he will never see himself as being far to the Right; he is just as bad as the caricatures he sets up to argue with...

It shows he has lost the ability to reason and be objectionable, hey ho he may prove me wrong and that was the person I used to enjoy debating with, now it is more like a whinging child

PhilDidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
7

Yep, but he will never see himself as being far to the Right; he is just as bad as the caricatures he sets up to argue with...

It shows he has lost the ability to reason and be objectionable, hey ho he may prove me wrong and that was the person I used to enjoy debating with, now it is more like a whinging child

Yet again dismissive of a point of view that differs from your own Eilzel. A seriously standard out of the box trait for a bigoted lefty.  Isn't drinky or myself not allowed to express opinions in this so called free country. The point is we are not allowed to express opinions at the ballot box a point you seem to applaud. I accept your view that the EU is good is as valid as mine. What I also note accept is that we never joined a Common Social policy or a pan European United States. Left or right Didge or Eilzel it doesn't matter what matters is, if you are so sure of your position, let the British people have a say.

I doubt very much you are sure because you fear a plebiscite.

Can you explain why successive governments have ceded powers without a referral back to the people since 1975? Earlier treaties maybe but not recent stuff.

PhilDidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge is massively RW on economic issues; the issues that ACTUALLY define LW and RW politics. His views on the NHS, welfare etc are very conservative.

On social issues though, he actually gives a shit about other people not like himself; I call it being a nice person- if you called left being a 'limp wristed lefty' well then so be it. I call the opposite knobheads   

Hi Eilzel

This is just drinky spitting his dummy out, I am not allowed to be on the fence with the EU I must be anti, which is not the Tory party view, the fact is he cannot back his claims to me being left and is as bad as catman now here with his arguments, I must be left because my views are not right of Genghis Khan to him

Didge I am no more right of Ghengis Khan and neither is Drinky. I'm sure he would tell you that but he is banned. You exhibit all the traits of the lefties you conveniently ignore views which do not coincide precisely with yours. Moreover even offered a cogent argument for example Why have we not been given a plebiscite since the EU has morphed into a Social pan European management and govt instead of a free trade area you call us far right. Ridiculous. It is not at all unreasonable to ask for a chance to vote on this.

For God sake the Scots got a vote on devolution as did the wesh. Why not the Brits on devolving power to Brussels?

kevins58 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


It shows he has lost the ability to reason and be objectionable, hey ho he may prove me wrong and that was the person I used to enjoy debating with, now it is more like a whinging child

Yet again dismissive of a point of view that differs from your own Eilzel. A seriously standard out of the box trait for a bigoted lefty.  Isn't drinky or myself not allowed to express opinions in this so called free country. The point is we are not allowed to express opinions at the ballot box a point you seem to applaud. I accept your view that the EU is good is as valid as mine. What I also note accept is that we never joined a Common Social policy or a pan European United States. Left or right Didge or Eilzel it doesn't matter what matters is, if you are so sure of your position, let the British people have a say.

I doubt very much you are sure because you fear a plebiscite.

Can you explain why successive governments have ceded powers without a referral back to the people since 1975? Earlier treaties maybe but not recent stuff.

Oh behave saying you are not drinky that is pathetic and not once were you able to back your view I am not a Tory, which again is pathetic and proves you acre acting like a child as nobody has ever denied you an opinion, not once, I counter your opinions and that is what you do not like and even more so when you cannot counter them claim I am trying to deny you the right to have your opinions, showing that is complete bullshit.

If the people decide to stay within the EU democratically, will you still piss and moan that more people disagree with you and do not fear some mythical soviet state you have dreamed up in your head? What will you do then, stamp your feet some more or accept that some people more than you disagree with you?

So nobody is denying you anything, I am not even against a referendum, so again you make things up to claim censorship when none exist from me

kevins58 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hi Eilzel

This is just drinky spitting his dummy out, I am not allowed to be on the fence with the EU I must be anti, which is not the Tory party view, the fact is he cannot back his claims to me being left and is as bad as catman now here with his arguments, I must be left because my views are not right of Genghis Khan to him

Didge I am no more right of Ghengis Khan and neither is Drinky. I'm sure he would tell you that but he is banned. You exhibit all the traits of the lefties you conveniently ignore views which do not coincide precisely with yours. Moreover even offered a cogent argument for example Why have we not been given a plebiscite since the EU has morphed into a Social pan European management and govt instead of a free trade area you call us far right. Ridiculous. It is not at all unreasonable to ask for a chance to vote on this.

For God sake the Scots got a vote on devolution as did the wesh. Why not the Brits on devolving power to Brussels?

One question who enforces EU laws in this country?

Take your time then you will see that you are talking bull

Again I am not against people voting to stay or go, so again you argue complete balderdash

The British govt overseen by EU courts and unelected officials and your point is?

The people stopping us having a say are the EU officials in collusion with the British govt is my point. The EU has coerced nations into avoiding plebiscites and disregarded No votes and forced a second.

Are you ignoring that Phil?

By the way Kev, the people do get to decide in an election, if they vote in a party that does not want to hold one, can you complain at that or blame yourself for your own failing over who you backed?

So again the British public is not being denied anything

kevins58 wrote:The British govt overseen by EU courts and unelected officials and your point is?

The people stopping us having a say are the EU officials in collusion with the British govt is my point. The EU has coerced nations into avoiding plebiscites and disregarded No votes and forced a second.

Are you ignoring that Phil?

Ignoring what, who enforces it?

Take your time

The fact is you have no case, each time there is a ruling we either accept or ignore, have we given the vote to prisoners?

Have we ignored the EU on the meaning of a sentence of life?

Yes, so who is enforcing we do otherwise?

Nobody, we ourselves are to blame when we act upon an EU law and carry it through, nobody else, something you fail to grasp

So the imposition of unelected governments by the EU in Greece and Italy is what exactly?

sphinx wrote:So the imposition of unelected governments by the EU in Greece and Italy is what exactly?

You tell me, have in these countries they allowed it?

They werent given the choice. Unless they wanted to go full blown civil war.

sphinx wrote:They werent given the choice.  Unless they wanted to go full blown civil war.

Here we go again avoiding the question and now making assumptions

So again did these countries allow it?

Take your time

How could they have not "allowed" it?

sphinx wrote:How could they have not "allowed" it?

So they accepted it then even though before they voted countless times and could not reach any majority decision.
Thus they allowed it.
Did they have the chance to change this?

Yes

so now what sort of "choice" is that....they could, in greece, for instance have voted in golden dawn...would you have been satisfied with that?..it was a scarily close call in reality.

OR ...what if they HAD opted for insurrection and possible civil war? what would have happened then....Lets have a guess...oh yes...EU "peacekeepers" would have been sent in to supress the insurrection, in favour of the rich and powerful, and especially in favour of the EU's demands....

Choice...I dont think so...

Do you think armed insurrection is a suitable tool in these matters?

Still choice, this is now making me really laugh and clearly I guess we now know you support UKIP Victor you have laid your cards on the table because of your views on nationalism, even though nobody can enforce EU rules, expect the nation themselves, clearly lost on you again.

Could Greece have walked away and declared bankruptcy?

Yes

you confuse "greece" with the "grecian people"

the "greece YOU talk of is that composed of the moneyed and powerful....who would have lost most if they had declared bankrupt...the "people" of greece however, would have lost much much less.

you see a country going "bankrupt" is actually impossible in practice. It has theoretically happened no end of times throughout history, in most cases with very little permanent harm to the country concerned, indeed if the truth be known there are a LOT of countries...(and not all 3rd world) that are...right now "technically" bankrupt. I.E their assets are worth less than their debts, and if those who owned the debts were to call them in there would be global financial collapse., so they wont, because if that happened, their debts would be worthless.

victorismyhero wrote:you confuse "greece" with the "grecian people"

the "greece YOU talk of is that composed of the moneyed and powerful....who would have lost most if they had declared bankrupt...the "people" of greece however, would have lost much much less.

you see a country going "bankrupt" is actually impossible in practice. It has theoretically happened no end of times throughout history, in most cases with very little permanent harm to the country concerned, indeed if the truth be known there are a LOT of countries...(and not all 3rd world) that are...right now "technically" bankrupt. I.E their assets are worth less than their debts, and if those who owned the debts were to call them in there would be global financial collapse., so they wont, because if that happened, their debts would be worthless.

I confuse nothing dear boy, so it is impossible, so why did Argentina mange it then?

argentina was not "ACTUALLY" bankrupt" in the normal sense of the word...technically bankrupt yes, in reality...did anyone "seize" their assets....did any debt holder walk in with a possession order and say I'll have 200,000 acres of the best rain forrest"
NO

thats what I mean about not ACTUALLY going bankrupt..the overall affect on the vast majority of argentinians was very small in relationship to the apparent scale of the problem...A few rich ones got badly bruised no doubt, but hey ho...such is life...

now the situation between argentina and greece is somewhat different....no-one would have dared get overtly involved if argentinia had imploded in insurrection (though it does seem to be something of a national hobby) however if greece had done so...the EU would certainly have got stuck in....

Hilarious, did or did not Argentina declare itself bankrupt and default on payments?

take your time

Didge you are the antithesis of democracy. An apologist for plotting unelected commissioners.

I now understand how easy it is to wrestle out of the arms of the electorate their democratic rights. We have people like you telling us we are mistaken.

Lord Haw Haw.

kevins58 wrote:Didge you are the antithesis of democracy. An apologist for plotting unelected commissioners.

I now understand how easy it is to wrestle out of the arms of the electorate their democratic rights. We have people like you telling us we are mistaken.

Lord Haw Haw.

Oh dear back to claims on me which you cannot back up as again I am for a referendum and for people to decide, showing again you have the arse after I made you look silly today on countless posts


Now again my views points are on the fence what I am doing is showing flaws in UKIP, whether you like that or not is your business, what is evident is you have no credible arguments but act the 3 year old again

yes it did, BUT...what happened...in reality...very little that the "ordinary man in the street" would have noticed..
i didnt see anyone suddenly claiming half of its territory in default of payment, or taking its toys (military hardware) off it or anything. No one suddenly stopped trading with it to a catastrophic level. It didnt turn overnight into a desert did it? NO...out of self interest, those who held the debts did everything they could to help them (well sort of). thats the thing you see...if you are going to go bust, make a job of it...owe millions...and in the case of countries owe trillions. That way your debtors take you seriously...

again you fail to see the difference between being bankrupt and "technically bankrupt". No matter what the words used are, something the financial size of a major country CANNOT...ever...be truely defacto bankrupt. If it were then there would be war, because the debtors would feel entitled to lien on the nation...aint gonna happen.

you and I can end up defacto bankrupt...and our goods and chattels seized....a country...never...
It all then becomes a matter of semantics....

victorismyhero wrote:yes it did, BUT...what happened...in reality...very little that the "ordinary man in the street" would have noticed..
i didnt see anyone suddenly claiming half of its territory in default of payment, or taking its toys (military hardware) off it or anything. No one suddenly stopped trading with it to a catastrophic level. It didnt turn overnight into a desert did it? NO...out of self interest, those who held the debts did everything they could to help them (well sort of).  thats the thing you see...if you are going to go bust, make a job of it...owe millions...and in the case of countries owe trillions. That way your debtors take you seriously...

again you fail to see the difference between being bankrupt and "technically bankrupt". No matter what the words used are, something the financial size of a major country CANNOT...ever...be truely defacto bankrupt. If it were then there would be war, because the debtors would feel entitled to lien on the nation...aint gonna happen.

you and I can end up defacto bankrupt...and our goods and chattels seized....a country...never...
It all then becomes a matter of semantics....

So they did then showing that a country has done so thus going back to my point Greece were contemplating this but backed out from doing so when they could have, so all other points are irrelevant

Anyway Victor really have to go, all the best mate, have a good evening!

like I said ...semantics....

and a good night to you  ::D:: 

It has nothing to do with UKIP it is you blurring the lines between fairness and subterfuge.

Never mind if that is your benchmark of what you think is right that is your call.