please log in to view this image - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15511081 I doubt I'd ever vote Tory in this lifetime or the next - but and to the man.
Agreed. about time our government did something about this. p.s. seems the congentially ignorant and ******ed posters disagree with us. Not surprising on here.
seems a bit trivial in light of the facts that killing people, abusing human rights etc are ok but youre ****ed if you dont allow homosexuality, no? This is just soundbites from this prick, the 'popular' vote if you will its like the french and the burkha ban, forget the rights and wrongs of wearing a burkha for a second and tell me was it worth shelling out that much money etc for something that affects 0.01% of the population. are there not bigger issues?
So this is not just about homosexuality but human rights in general, and countries that kill their own people won't receive aid either.
it focuses on homosexuality David Cameron has threatened to withhold UK aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality. Ending the bans on homosexuality was one of the recommendations of an internal report into the future relevance of the Commonwealth. Some 41 nations within the 54-member Commonwealth have laws banning homosexuality. Many of these laws are a legacy of British Empire laws.
Those MP's all shove oranges up their **** pits as well as steal public money. What do you expect, most of the government are sausage jockey's.
Well that's every single one of the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on the black list then. But as they refuse to recognise the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights because, they say, it is incompatable with Islamic Sharia Law it should hardly come as a surprise.
Completely agree. we're broke, we shouldn't be giving money to foreign countries until George has balanced the books.
Some 41 nations within the 54-member Commonwealth have laws banning homosexuality. Many of these laws are a legacy of British Empire laws.
How do we lose money by not giving aid? it's a cut in spending, meaning we save money. I'm good at maths, trust me, i'm correct here.
if it was that simple you would obviously be correct. The problem is, as always, things are never that simple. Aid is given for many reasons, not many of them involve generousity. The aid when given has proviso's. For example Ghana had to purchase certain materials from the USA. The cost of which far outweighed the aid given. It also stopped certain scientific break throughs including a reflective type of brick that reflected the heat whilst keeping the interior cool India's foray into the car industry in Britain and other industry have been as a result of the aid given What people dont realise is thats some of the 'aid' isnt food and water for the poor. In the main charities fulfil this role. An example is the computer technology given to pakistan as a 'payoff' for the war in afghanistan. etc etc
What about countries that imprison political activists and restrict free speech Yes you Salmond ya ****
