That's if Wembley is still standing at 7-55pm !!

Sorry BM but I have to disagree with you.....

The press were also 'commenting' about the GP drivers in Brazil, the Tennis players in London and even the English and Pakistani players in Sharjah.

I feel sorry for Hodgson, he's not a politician or a Frenchman, he's a manager of a football team who are playing against a team who are representing a country who have just suffered attack in their capital.

I think it's commendable what the teams and fans are doing.

I for one wholeheartedly support the game tonight. And I'm not a football fan.

I see the Turkish fans didn't respect the minute's silence in Istanbul tonight. They like us when they're taking our money in the shops/restaurants/markets.....

Wtf? I said I am sick of hearing about it and I don't see the relationship between football and people dying.

What the fans did was brill, I agree and it was good to see the French appreciate it and Wembley sell out because people wanted to show support for the victims..but then I never said it wasn't. The world's full of donkeys reading things that aren't written, do you work for the tabloid press by any chance?

I actually think there is, indirectly, a massive relationship between the two.

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread and the media, we need to stand together whether we are French, Muslim, Russian or Christian (other races and religions are available).

The one universal thing that brings nations and races together is sport, football not only being one of the most popular, but also extremely prominent at the moment.

Happenstance dictated that France were due to play England at this point in history. A total godsend to the media, but not the fault of the participants who, in my view, all behaved with uplifting dignity and humanity in spite of the media frenzy.

It was only a matter of time until Amnesty jumped on the new terror emergency laws.

John Dalheisun needs to be air-dropped into the Syrian bad lands. I'm sure Daesh would love too listen to Amnesty prattle on about human rights.

The thing is, Jimbo, that is what Amnesty is there for, so of course they will question the new measures. If I were a conspiracy theory kinda guy (I'm not), then I might be inclined to reflect on how handy an attack such as the Paris one is for the supporters of increased State surveillance at such a time. How can we possibly object to any powers that could possibly prevent something like this? I mean none of us has anything to hide, right?
I'm glad there is someone out there at least asking the questions, even if they haven't a snowball's of stopping anything.

I don't think they need an excuse to fit concrete wellies to the high risk known suspects and take them for swimming lessons. If they wanted to do so then it would happen, they don't need to host an elaborate show.

It just concerns me Amnesty seem to want to protect all these people on the same list, think Abu Hamza, etc.

All Amnesty is concerned with is that due process is followed. There will be abuses with greater or lesser sanction by the State, but I'd still rather someone was keeping a neutral eye to ensure it doesn't become too commonplace.

They want to protect you. And me. And everyone else posting here. Rights are worthless unless they apply to everyone, and USED. So Jimbo wants to take the people attacking the freedoms of our society and summarily execute them, yet Jimbo is the person posting attacks on the freedom of our society.

Which is it going to be for you then Jimbo, hangman's noose or 9mm to the back of the head?

Err hang on, I don't want to execute anyone?

I just questioned Amnesty's actions on protecting the guilty. Anyway, I'm not here for an argument so I'll leave you guys to it.

Amnesty is do gooders disconnected from the real world. If the perpetrators of crime have rights, what about the victims? Their rights have already been violated.
In the case of hamza, he flauts the human rights act for his own benefit, knowing he can cry Wolf. He is truly the worst kind of person, preaching hate towards the west then using its laws to.protect him. Under the rules of Sharia he'd be dead.

Save your breath Muzzie, the same do gooders police this forum.

And for that reason, I'm out.

Says a lot about some peoples priorities when doing good is seen as a term of abuse....

So you're saying we should stoop to his level?

If we don't behave in a better manner than these people then what does that make us?

Ha haha!! Second person in a week to try and twist what I say for a reaction. Get a grip, you obviously condone his views so I'll agree with jimbo, I'm out.

To my mind the human rights act (HRA) is something to which we should not need, but sadly, do.

The big problem with it is that it is too wide and capable of too much interpretation: great things for a politician but applicable to too many things for which it was (probably) not intended. And the snag is - there's no such things as human rights *unless and until* a government chooses to grant them. They're no airy-fairy concept; no-one has a 'right to life' or to 'a family life' or to 'practice a religion'. They just have opportunities to do so and the HRA ensures that the judicial powers do their best to ensure that they can.

To be honest, I'd rather do without, but I'd rather have it than live in a state where due process is bypassed for political expediency.

Example: someone shot because they're standing over bodies and are in the act of killing more: no problem. Someone charged because they once looked at a website owned by someone who spoke to someone who sent an email to someone who might be planning something? Meh...

I have always believed that anybody that commits a heinous crime should automatically loose any human rights as a defence

Did anyone hear Andrew Neil's rant regarding IS in the introduction to his 'This Week' show?

Quite amusing to many, not so to some....

Not sure if it'll play though.

You say something as horrible as this and then claim I'm the one who needs to get a grip.

Grow up.

Yeah, an "Inbetweeners 2" quote on this thread.. Who'd have thought

Yes, I wonder if it was for George Galloway's benefit. Being that however you feel about GG he is probably unsurpassed in the oratory department.

The sudden outpouring of venom actually made me feel slightly uncomfortable, even if I can't really challenge any of its authenticity. I didn't feel it was a very good example to set to would-be ISIS fans, more like a goad or much of the same extremist rhetoric.

I did enjoy Portillo's naughty question to GG though "Are you available for Labour leadership?"

1. a compliment to George's eloquence and er, forthrightness
2. George as leader, hahahahahahaha he hasn't a chance, rubbing it in
3. George as leader, Tories guaranteed power for foreseeable future

John Oliver's was better, and earlier.

Not quite sure why anyone's using Abu Hamza to support their case against yoghurt-knitting liberals, he was extradited to the US last year where he's now doing forever with no parole. Amnesty's disconnected you say...

Agreed and true.