|
|
What are your views on this intriguing case currently before the US Supreme
Court?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBB1IFL31E.html
The issue here seems to be whether an employer should be allowed to grant
new hires (and 'junior' employees) pay in
|
|
|
"TAW" <aas@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2uvkspF1u6id3U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Alex" <akiralx@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:_3adnTV5oIPb_RfcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
>>
>> "jason" <me@me.com> wrote in message
>> news:OAnid.1413$F
|
|
|
In article <DosWunDQUqiBFwNe@fensoft.co.uk>, spamdump@fensoft.co.uk
says...
> >I know, it was a reply to the post you said sarcasm wasn't obvious, it
> >was another attempt ;-p
>
> I got it. <g> Your problem is that, with the way things are today,
|
|
|
In message <MPG.1bf4ac5ea036652998994d@NEWS.INDIVIDUAL.DE>, joe parkin
<joefpmail-newsgroup@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>In article <gi6lo09v5g10u28u98crp39026s7pcifr9@4ax.com>, cynic_999
>@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> >He has a point, the police may have shot him
|
|
|
"Alex" <akiralx@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_3adnTV5oIPb_RfcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
>
> "jason" <me@me.com> wrote in message
> news:OAnid.1413$Fk7.989@sam.nntpserver.com...
> So where were you, then - and can you prove it?
>
> His reco
|
|
|
In article <gi6lo09v5g10u28u98crp39026s7pcifr9@4ax.com>, cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
> >He has a point, the police may have shot him for lying about what was
> >in the bag.
>
> The facts are known. Harry Stanley was shot dead without being aske
|
|
|
"joe parkin" <joefpmail-newsgroup@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf488a6badac3e98994c@NEWS.INDIVIDUAL.DE...
> In article <4ttjo0td5sdr4mpgkb7k04fp7rh8rrthd1@4ax.com>, cynic_999
> @yahoo.co.uk says...
> > Now if you hear a shout from behind
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:42:12 -0000, joe parkin
<joefpmail-newsgroup@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <qktjo0td1fdm6ohteikgkjricqd897mdp8@4ax.com>, cynic_999
>@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> >and shoot him. They would have spoken to him and he obvioulsy must n
|
|
|
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0411040212.1386198c@posting.google.com...
> > Agreed, my brother-in-law is in an armed devision of the Met and
> > there are very strict rules before any shots are fired. Th
|
|
|
"joe parkin" <joefpmail-newsgroup@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf488a6badac3e98994c@NEWS.INDIVIDUAL.DE...
> In article <4ttjo0td5sdr4mpgkb7k04fp7rh8rrthd1@4ax.com>, cynic_999
> @yahoo.co.uk says...
> > Now if you hear a shout from behind te
|
|
|
David Gee wrote:
> "Not the Karl Orff" <canwine@nome.com> wrote in message
> news:canwine-7F4005.16422102112004@news.va.shawcable.net...
>
>>In article <2uh1qiF2b2mquU1@uni-berlin.de>,
>>steve <steve@nevernowut.org.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mans
|
|
|
In article <4ttjo0td5sdr4mpgkb7k04fp7rh8rrthd1@4ax.com>, cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
> Now if you hear a shout from behind telling you to lie on the ground
> as you are walking home from the pub, perhaps you would immediately do
> so without determ
|
|
|
In article <qktjo0td1fdm6ohteikgkjricqd897mdp8@4ax.com>, cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
> >and shoot him. They would have spoken to him and he obvioulsy must not
> >have been co-operative and truthful over what was in the bag.
> >
>
> Why don't you
|
|
|
"jason" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:OAnid.1413$Fk7.989@sam.nntpserver.com...
>
> >
> > As for why he can't provide an alibi, where were you at 7.30 pm on 29th
> > October 2003? After all this time it is easy to forget that Stone was
> > not
|
|
|
>Subject: Re: The US would NEVER Allow it!! Re: Canada to become 51st State
>From: "David Gee" scoop604@hotmail.com
>Date: 11/2/2004 3:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <yAUhd.43600$VA5.25253@clgrps13>
>
>
>"XLanManX" <xlanmanx@aol.com> wrot
|
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:58:24 GMT, "AlmostBob"
<anonymous1@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Wasnt the election just decided by the 20 electoral votes in ohio, that means
>60 would have real power
>
That would be the only way a democrat could get e
|
|
|
Wasnt the election just decided by the 20 electoral votes in ohio, that means
60 would have real power
|
|
|
>> Why if 2 previous
>>juries found that the killing was unjustified was nothing done
>>before now?
>
> Why indeed. That is exactly why many of us are outraged. Perhaps you
> might be good enough to examine the reported facts before
> automatical
|
|
|
> 1) Nasty piece of #@($ regardless of case in point
> 2) Why the gratuitous pictures of victim? Does it help?
You wait till you see what I'm gonna put on it next.
> 3) "The links below will take the reader to Michael Stone's criminal record:
> a
|
|
|
"TAW" <aas@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2utfptF2eam8eU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
> news:10503184.0411031723.2ee0b547@posting.google.com...
> > Added a few pics for this.
> >
> >
|
|
|
>
> As for why he can't provide an alibi, where were you at 7.30 pm on 29th
> October 2003? After all this time it is easy to forget that Stone was
> not questioned until about a year after the murders. There is no way on
> God's green earth that he
|
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:51:23 -0000, "PhilÅ" <iclgateway@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I find this website sick.
So don't visit it.
>He has been convicted.
But he might be innocent: that's why we have appeal procedures.
>Pictures of him and the famil
|
|
|
I find this website sick.
He has been convicted.
Pictures of him and the family that was destroyed my the murders on the same
site is very poor.
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0411031723.2ee0b5
|
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:34:21 GMT, "Matthew Maddock"
<news@plsnospam.mmaddock.com> wrote:
>I don't know the full facts of the case.
Evidently
> Why if 2 previous
>juries found that the killing was unjustified was nothing done
>before now?
W
|
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:57:27 GMT, "Matthew Maddock"
<news@plsnospam.mmaddock.com> wrote:
>Agreed, my brother-in-law is in an armed devision of the Met and
>there are very strict rules before any shots are fired. The guy must
>have done something
|
|
|
On 3 Nov 2004 07:19:39 -0800, johnny8977@lycos.co.uk (johnny8977)
wrote:
>Well, they were actually found innocent of any wrong doing on two
>previous occasions. It hasn't been mentioned the circumstances
>surrounding the shooting - I'm sure they d
|
|
|
Matthew Maddock wrote:
>>>Agreed, my brother-in-law is in an armed devision of the Met and
>>>there are very strict rules before any shots are fired.
>>
>> That doesn't mean the rules are always obeyed.
>
> True, but they too would be pretty stup
|
|
|
Matthew Maddock wrote:
> Agreed, my brother-in-law is in an armed devision of the Met and
> there are very strict rules before any shots are fired. The guy must
> have done something pretty stupid to have been shot. Think about
> it, you have Poli
|
|
|
In message <2utfptF2eam8eU1@uni-berlin.de>, TAW <aas@microsoft.com>
writes
>Sorry, site seems to be full of legalese about why he should escape on
>legal technicalities. How about some cast iron 'wasn't him' stuff?
In this country, we have a rul
|
|
|
> Agreed, my brother-in-law is in an armed devision of the Met and
> there are very strict rules before any shots are fired. The guy must
> have done something pretty stupid to have been shot. Think about
> it, you have Police pointing weapons at you
|
|
|
> Well, they were actually found innocent of any wrong doing on two
> previous occasions. It hasn't been mentioned the circumstances
> surrounding the shooting - I'm sure they didn't just see this bloke
> and shoot him. They would have spoken to him an
|
|
|
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0411031723.2ee0b547@posting.google.com...
> Added a few pics for this.
>
> http://www.ismichaelstoneguilty.org/
>
> Please visit the site and sign the guest book with s
|
|
