Guided Missile

Turning back the clock three years: :lol:

Article 25 – Confiscated property 1 Property confiscated by a Party pursuant to Articles 23 and 24 of this Convention, shall be disposed of by that Party in accordance with its domestic law and administrative procedures. 2 When acting on the request made by another Party in accordance with Articles 23 and 24 of this Convention, Parties shall, to the extent permitted by domestic law and if so requested, give priority consideration to returning the confiscated property to the requesting Party so that it can give compensation to the victims of the crime or return such property to their legitimate owners.

Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism Happy, now? To save you the trouble of reading the European Law covering Antonov's alleged crime, this is the salient part: Section 1 – General provisions Article 3 – Confiscation measures 1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds or property the value of which corresponds to such proceeds and laundered property. 2 Provided that paragraph 1 of this article applies to money laundering and to the categories of offences in the appendix to the Convention, each Party may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, declare that paragraph 1 of this article applies a only in so far as the offence is punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of more than one year. However, each Party may make a declaration on this provision in respect of the confiscation of the proceeds from tax offences for the sole purpose of being able to confiscate such proceeds, both nationally and through international cooperation, under national and international tax-debt recovery legislation; and/or b only to a list of specified offences. 3 Parties may provide for mandatory confiscation in respect of offences which are subject to the confiscation regime. Parties may in particular include in this provision the offences of money laundering, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and any other serious offence. 4 Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to require that, in respect of a serious offence or offences as defined by national law, an offender demonstrates the origin of alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of its domestic law. I was expecting PFC to be forced to give the money back from the people he stole it from. You really will have to change your name to Baldrick. Is their no end to your cunning plans?

I think that there is far too much attantion given to what the Football League may or may not do, with regard to Pompey. A points deduction is the least of their problems. It is claimed by the governments of Lithuania and Latvia that over $1.3 billion of depositors funds, formally held by two banks owned by Antonov are unaccounted. It is further claimed that Antonov stole this money to by assets in the form of homes, shares in companies, etc. These governments are currently seizing control of any assets of Antonov, that they can get their hands on, to recover depositors savings in these banks that they are insuring. Presumably they will be seizing PFC and liquidating it to repatriate these funds, if Antonov is found guilty of misappropriating these funds. I can't see how, with the potential claims that these two EU governments have on Antonovs assets, how anyone could by the club, or invest in it. I also can't see how Chanrai can gain access to any security that he was offered by Antonov, considering that the security probably consists of stolen money. PFC, as a company, is screwed. As a club, I jusy don't know. All I know is that no one is going to buy or invest in them, unless they are certifiably insane...

An earlier monetary Union was the Latin Monetary Union. The key country behind it was politically dominant but economically weak France, which was governed as the Second French Empire since 1852 by Napoleon III. While the industrial revolution roared in the net-exporters Switzerland and Belgium, the French economy looked rather weak, with their imports for years regularly outnumbering their exports, according to the German economist Theresia Theurl. Economic integration as the remedy for French jealousy Hence, the French peered over the channel to England with fascination and jealousy. They regarded the City of London as financially dominating the world by lending money to Chile, Peru, Austria, Spain, Turkey and Portugal. France hoped to imitate this libéralisme d’argent (monetary freedom) at the Paris Bourse. But besides all these French power aspirations, the creation of the Latin Union was a result of trade integration, the free trade movement prevalent at that time, and France's large capital supplies. It was founded in 1865 by France, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland. In 1868, Greece joined the Union, together with Spain, three years after it was founded. When the states faced a dilemma between Union or national interest, they pursued their national interest. The Union was regulated by a treaty. It provided strict ‘criteria’ according to which the states were only allowed to mint a certain number of coins. This amount had to correspond to the reserves of gold and silver possessed by the central banks. Every participating state had informational duties to report the activities of its national mint. And especially during the admission of new members, these criteria were carefully monitored. The Papal States, predecessors of the Vatican, were ejected from the Union, because they minted six times as many coins as they were allowed to. Doomed to fail The Union never really worked, however; it disintegrated over time. When the states faced a dilemma between the Union and national interest, they pursued their national interest. Sanction or control mechanisms were not present, the treaty was incomplete and the provisions were subject to unilateral interpretation. Each read the treaty to their own advantage. Already in the late 1860s, when Italy was engaged in a costly war with Austria, it took up a credit from its Banca Nazionale, freeing her in return from her obligation to back the currency with gold. This led to a similar result as in the Scandinavian Monetary Union: the value of the Italian money in the Union dropped. Also, at other occasions, the countries showed diverging monetary policies at the expense of more prudent participants. The treaty left it open as to whether this was forbidden or not. France followed with similar behaviour during the war against Germany from 1870 on. The Union's continued existence seemed doomed to fail. In practical terms it ended much earlier, before World War I, and was only shut down on paper in 1926.

Antonov won't see the New Year, in my opinion....

A few facts: Lord Myners is a tax dodging, ineffectual, naive, socialist peer and class traitor. Cameron rescued the UK from signing up to a treaty with the following aims: 1) A golden rule on deficit limits for all member states, 2) Automatic penalties (presumably in the form of sanctions) for countries that break that rule, and 3) A requirement that member states submit their budgets to the EU authorities for approval before they can be considered by their own national parliaments. Luckily for Lord Myners, he isn't subject to the same degree of control that the French and Italians will be subject to, as he favours tax dodging overseas havens. I know the lefties on here have a nostalgia for the policies of the Soviet Union, but I don't....

Although, I must admit that we all thought that invading Poland was illegal, although that didn't stop Germany...

It's more like moaning about the Government making mugging legal and then having your wallet stolen, you mean.

Total ******...

I'll stick to my opinion that he is a clueless w@ nker who signed off Goodwin's pension and MP's of both parties share this opinion as this FT article confirms.

The Slade brothers were drinking in the Grapes in Southampton and were left on the quay, as the Titanic sailed for New York. The passengers waved to them, as the liner made its way down Southampton Water, mentioning to each other how they were so unfortunate to be left behind and would not be able to have a say, in how the deck chairs were going to be arranged on the deck.

Ffs

Well, your Lordship, I think you are a clueless w@ nker for awarding Sir Fred Goodwin £695K per annum of public money and you and that other Socialist peer, Lord Prescott, should be hung from the nearest lampost as traitors to your class...

Sorry. How was I to know you were Lord Myners?

I highlighted the parts you are having a problem understanding. If you think that the opinion of "Lord" Myners counts for a pinch of sh !t, you should read a little of his background. He's a socialist peer, appointed by Gordon Brown, who thought the RBS board was distinguished and approved the use of public money to pay its ex-chairman, Sir Fred Goodwin, £693,000 each year, for the rest of his life. In other words, a clueless w@ nker, totally out of touch with what is sensible, with regard to the use of public money. You obviously feel he's someone that speaks for you, though. Clueless...

You, I and everyone else knew what you meant...

You obviously have no clue about what Cameron actually did in Brussels, have you? He vetoed a change to the EU treaty that allowed for Brussels to dictate our national budget. Please explain how that adversely affects the City?? Actually, don't bother...just read this and learn...

Finland spends about as much on wefare, as a % of GDP as Italy and Greece. If you are saying that there is a correlation between spending on welfare and economic strength, you're crackers. There is no correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure.

I must admit, I discounted the possibility that you were that rare beast, the socialist capitalist. I thought that particular breed had left the political arena with Tony Blair. The problem with political dogma, the type of which you are exhibiting in the face of evidence to the contrary, is that you will stick with it, all the way down the road to ruin along which Gordon Brown was taking us. All the way to an emergency loan from the IMF, a point we arrived at under the previous Labour government to the last one. What you haven't realised is that the current Labour party has been mobilised by the leftist trade unions, aghast at the necessary public spending cuts that have been forced upon us by the circumstances that were created by the last Labour party. What you also haven't realised is that the public budgetary rules that are to be forced upon the rest of the euro lemmings, would prevent this country from either quantitive easing or public spending increases that would drag us out of the Brown stuff into which we were dropped. Of course, the only winner in the new EU order will be Germany, who will dominate the economic policies of the region to the detriment of the rest. PS. I voted for Tony Blairs labour party. Ed Milliband? Ed Balls? Jeez, would anyone?

A successful Olympics is always good for the government of the day. Why is that opinion odd? I am taking a wild guess that you work in the public sector. Why would anyone else consider voting Socialist until we have a budget surplus to waste and that won't be for at least 10 years...

I always pictured the Lib-Dems as the left of centre party. A cobbled together coalition of the pillow biting Liberals and Woy Jenkins disaffected Labour rebels. Their party is based on the desperate search for power by an inconsequentual party and as from the beginning, they have always been prepared to sacrifice their principles for a shot at power. This has been demonstrated by their behaviour in power and they have been found out. At the next election, their supporters will desert them in droves and even they aren't stupid enough to vote for the fall guy that the Labour party have installed. This country will swing decisively to the right as the economy improves. It will begin at the Olympics and it will be like 1936 all over again, without the subsequent World War.

Quite possibly the funniest statement ever made on this forum...

So, for those following the story so far, this thread from nearly three years ago set the scene regarding how f* cked UK plc was, compared to our foreign chums, unlucky enough to reside outside our sceptred isle. Well, since that date, we got rid of the worst Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequor in history. The Hon. Gordon Brown will be rightly blamed for the banking fiasco due to his "light touch" regulation of the banks by the FSA, in a report to be published next week and leaked to Sky news here. The brutal cuts in public sector finances since that date, together with the "Bunga Bunga" approach in Continental Europe has led to a slight re-assessment of how f* cked UK plc now is, compared to the rest of the world and all of the stereotypes of foreign governements are confirmed in the latest list of Credit Default Swap prices, shown below (the higher the figure, the higher chance of default). Sovereign Credit-Default Swaps AUSTRIA 5-YR 180.99 BELGIUM 5-YR 317.45 CHINA 5-YR 173.57 DENMARK 5-YR 130.98 DUBAI 5-YR 450.00 EGYPT 5-YR 567.11 FINLAND 5- YR 74.79 FRANCE 5-YR 209.65 GERMANY 5-YR 98.78 GREECE 5-YR 10115.70 HUNGARY 5-YR 575.44 INDONESIA 5-YR 214.81 IRELAND 5-YR 718.02 ITALY 5-YR 535.73 JAPAN 5-YR 128.17 REP. OF KOREA 5-YR 148.22 NETHERLANDS 5-YR 120.00 PANAMA 5-YR 38.62 PORTUGAL 5-YR 1100.93 SLOVAKIA 5-YR 295.00 SPAIN 5-YR 425.32 SWEDEN 5-YR 76.47 SWITZERLAND 5-YR 69.65 UNITED KINGDOM 5-YR 96.45 UNITED STATES 5-YR 52.41 On this day when the rest of Europe is criticising our government, it may be worth them checking the scores on the doors. All that is left now, is winning the war against the bloated public sector, cheating benefit claimants, scrounging students and tax dodgers. Such a pity that this portion of the population has a louder voice than those earning a living from sources other than our taxes, but at least they aren't being listened to. (Cue left wing apologists posting on here and Ed Balls(up) looking like the clueless hyena he is, next week in the Commons. At least Fred Goodwin and Gordon Brown had the sense to crawl under stones and collect their pensions.)