Its no problem in Scotland. There are no arguments as to who wears the trousers. As for caber tossing, this will have to be mutually agreed between the parties.

Well, let's face it.......what else do they have to do? Scotland has no real economy, apart from golf courses, fish farms, and a national - bordering on pathological - hatred of us English. Yet they're happy to hold out their hand for the English subsidy, so we English pay to support people who really don't like us.
Wait a minute where have I heard that before?
That's all we English do, pay out money to support people who hate us.
Still, it gives the Scottish parliament (how grand they are, and how much English money it cost to set this bureaucratic shambles up) something to do, and whilst they're busy, they're not hating us. Always assuming that they can't do more than one thing at once of course.

Stupid stupid stupid Scottish government

A small child whose father is alleged to be a philandering politician has won £15,000 privacy damages from Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers at the High Court.

The mother of the girl, identified only as AAA, has not named the father on her daughter's birth certificate and wants to find the "right time" to reveal his identity to her.

Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, who made the award after a six-day private hearing in London, said the professional position of the supposed father, a married elected politician, spoke for itself.

"As to his private life, he is a man who has achieved a level of notoriety as a result of extramarital adulterous liaisons."

Lawyers for AAA said journalists and photographers acting for Associated Newspapers "laid siege" to her family home over 12 days in the summer of 2010, and published her photo and articles which speculated as to the identity of her father.

When it was decided to take the child, who was then less than one year old, to her grandparents' house in Kent, a private security company was hired, and a distressed AAA had to be shielded by umbrellas from a barrage of flashing cameras.

'Shrooms are Class A?

Less than a quarter of parents are in favour of default online content filtering, a new study has found.

Only one-fifth of UK parents believe default filtering of harmful content is the best system for protecting youngsters online, according to TalkTalk.

YouGov, working on behalf of the internet service provider (ISP), found 78 per cent of adults with children in their household are opposed to this solution, which would automatically block material such as pornography.

Publication: Daily Mail

Complaint:

Mr Martin Robbins complained to the Press Complaints Commission under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice about an article which reported that ‘two thirds of the public backed the newspaper's campaign for an automatic block on online porn'. The complainant said that the survey on which the article was based found that only 36% agreed with the statement that "people's internet service should be filtered unless they ask for it not to be" (i.e. an opt-out basis). The 66% figure referred to the number of people who said that a filtering service should be available if they want it (i.e. an opt-in basis).

Resolution:
While the newspaper maintained that its interpretation of the study had been reasonable, the matter was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the online article and the marking of the newspaper's cuttings for future reference.

Date Published: 15/06/2012

'Shrooms are Class A?