velcorin

I accept that the level of culpability in a death will lead to a different charge, and potentially a lesser sentence. Still begs my point as to why there is a seperate murder charge for a minor, which may, or may not, be coincident with the age of sexual consent. If I get bored tonight I'll do some research into France legal philosophy, also I'll have my petite translation device available then.  

For me it's the philosopical point that the Code does differentiate. The level of culpabilty of the accused in the death of the victim. Fair enough. The status of the victim. Why differentiate?, that implies one life is more important than another. It was purely an academic philosophical point that grated on me.

I'm sure some of you may have seen this on the French news. The wife has now been formally charged with murder, and husband, with not reporting a crime and concealing the bodies. http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/villers-au-tertre-la-mere-reconnait-avoir-etouffe-8-de-ses-enfants-29-07-2010-1016009.php I wasn't aware there was a seperate crime of mudering a minor. It begs the question, why differentiate regarding age? Is this saying based on age, one persons life is more, or less, important. And if so, why? Murder is Murder surely. What happened to Egalite? As to why they did it? Maybe it's the Ch'ti gene.

Swiss banks, and unmarked envelopes. The weapon of choose for any Teutonic businessman when negotiating contracts.[:)] Long may they continue to be caught.

In some ways the French system is better. Everyone knows the standards are absolutely appalling, that it is incredibly expensive, Basically, you pay until you run out of money, and you've sold everything. Then the State and your children pay. Everyone tries like mad to stay out of them ie if you make it so bad, nobody wants to use them. I can think of a couple of cases which have made the local paper where I live (you'd have to pay to read them). In one case the owner's wife purchased children in West African, smuggled them into France, then literally used them as slaves. In another, the staff as normal routine handcuffed the "inmates" to the metal bed frames all day/night. Apparently, the "inmates" could not be controlled in any other way.  

Locked up in a mental hospital, because of a computer error..............OMG [:-))] http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/emmenee-de-force-a-l-hopital-psychiatrique-pour-une-erreur-informatique-27-07-2010-1014151.php

[quote user="krusty"] What are the standards like in French care homes ? [/quote] Best not ask. And don't read the papers. [Www]

Did the DM just totally invent their story? Can't find any reference to it in the French media[8-)]

Hope the air-con works[:D]

Hope the air-con works[:D] Been

Hope the air-con works[:D]

I wonder if there is a angle aimed at the UK Govn? Particularly Vince Cable, known anti-nuke, and the review of the nuke build programme promoted by the previous Govn? Re France. The problem, as briefly mentioned in the article, is peak consumption. You can't turn a nuke plant off and on, like you can with the Brit/German carbon fuel plants. Hence, the system on abonnements, trying to limit peak consumption, and importing power from the Uk and Germany. Re the cost of lecky. EdF doesn't pay to build the nuke plants, or decommission them. It's a bl**dy fix. You should hear what the German Govn thinks. Most of it is highly undimplomatic to say the least[:D] Oh, and they don't have to worry about pension provisions, as the lucky taxpayer gets to pick them up[:D]

Mmmm, I've got half a dozen BiLs who I'd describe as Beauf. Presumably here, Ch'nord?

[quote user="allanb"] Perhaps I'm more sceptical than you about the motives of governments.  If you are a politician whose objective is to be popular, it's useful to be able to give money to voters in the form of pensionable employment in the public sector without having to disclose the existence of all those nasty unfunded pension obligations.  As you say, the next generation will take care of those, and by then you'll be out of office. [/quote] I doubt you're more sceptical than me[:D] How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving. Applies anywhere in the world.

PPP the Third Man was Govou, apparently he's not on garde a vue as she was over 18.

Ta I wonder if the WC debacle is having an effect of whether they get charged, or not[:)] Don't suppose Franck will understand what he did was wrong. It's not like she's family [;-)]

http://www.france24.com/en/20100720-police-question-ribery-benzema-under-age-sex-probe-football-france-prostitution (I forget who the 3rd one was. Evra?) Probably a bit less stressful garde a vue than the Grenoble potshots.

The obligation is incurred by the State (not the Govn), which is considered a permanent entity. There will aways be a State, and there will always be taxpayers, so it is considered perfectly reasonable, to transfer pension obligations to the current beneficiaries, to future generations. It is the European Social Model. A Company is a non-permanent entity, hence the differing accounting rules for pensions. All countries do it. For example the EUR2trillion required in France for nuke decommissioning is an oblgation, not a debt. Same with state pensions, and state owned companies' pensions, like SNCF, EdF or France Telecom, no charge is incurred on the Balance Sheet. Hence, my comment about the true position in France when using the same methodology. Under the "benefit of use" rule I would accept you could make an arguement that PFI should be considered as a debt. However, no other country uses that method (eg private hospitals in France), so I'd take it that it is considered perfectly reasonable to have this off Balance Sheet. I would also accept that state owned companies in France gain an unfair competative advantage when not accounting for pensions, something the EU is still considering at the instigation of Germany.

Sorry, misunderstood, thought it was connected to the Newcastle info[:$]

[quote user="ericd"] Tunisia is a moderate Muslim country and they have banned the wearing of burka in public. tell me why?[/quote] Coz it's Tunisia? I doubt the UK would accept ALL Tunisian laws, so picking odd ones to incorporate is not really valid.

I'm assuming the GBP5Trillion figure has come from costing annuities to cover the public servive and state pension figures, and adding in the recapitalisation of the RBS and Lloyds. Politics gone mad. And very interesting accounting, as only shows one side of the Balance Sheet. Someone after cheap headlines, TaxPayers Alliance, or ONS? 1 Can we see the Assets please. 2 The the RBS and Lloyds stakes are already in profit, so scratch GBP1.5Trillion 3 Pensions are future obligations, not debts. 4 If you rolled this methodology out accross Europe, I can guarantee that France will have at least twice that figure[:D]

And we haven't even got into the traditional riot season yet.

And the relevance is? More robberies have been committed by people wearing blue jeans. In which case using your logic, it would make a thousand times more sense to ban them. No? (Say, there was 1500 bank robberies in France last year, maybe 1 was wearing a burqa, say 1000 wearing blue jeans) In 12 months time it will be illegal to wear a bridal veil outside a Mairie. That's how stupid this has become. I have never seen a burqa in France, I live in a prodominately muslim area, and travel through Paris everyday.

Just to clarify for all the non-French speakers, and people who get their information about France from the BBC/DT/DM. NO WHERE IN THE PREPOSED LAW DOES IT STATE THAT BURQAS ARE BANNED. Yes, the proposed law would ban, in public, balaclavas, it would also ban pulling up a scarf over your face, it would ban wearing a full face crash helmet, other than on a bike (motorcycle couriers take note, no popping into offices). it would ban bridal veils, burquas, ski masks, and any form of article that covers the face. The Constitutional Council, the highest legal authority in the country, pointed out banning the burqa specifically, would be against the French Constitution. In it's research notes the CC stated that 1200 woman wore the full burqa in France, out of a muslim population of 8million. Of that 1200 the majority (ie more than 600) were ethnic French women (catholics) who had converted to Islam. The majority of women were BAC+3 educated, and worked in professional/managerial jobs. Blue-eyed, blonde haired, European, highly educated, independently wealthy women. I can only apologise that the CC research did not find the stereotype referred to by a number of posters. Note, this proposed law still has to go to the upper house, the Senate, and may still be struck down by the CC. The CC has already intimaded it will be struck down as anti-Constitutional, and that's even before the European Court on Human Rights gets to consider it.  

Autan and Saltidin are the chemically the same, when it comes to the active ingredients. Autan is SC Johnson's product, Saltidin the Bayer/Lanxess product, there are probably others.