@Chris_x: "<url>
Ministers are considering raising the minimum legal age for buying tobacco 
in England from 16 to 18, the Department of Health has said.
Campaigners argue bringing the law on cigarettes into line with that on 
alcohol would reduce under-age smokers."
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 02:58:00 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
This change has the aroma of Blair's Nanny State in action again.
That's what many people will find objectionable about it. How long
before one of his feminasties wants a law telling us how to walk?
Maybe we should all wear red stockings on Sundays?
I support a consistent age whereby adolescants become adults in law
but this should apply to a range of issues, not just the age when
someone can legally buy tobacco. This change should be part of a wider
modernisation of those laws including the age when a person is liable
to pay tax and drink alcohol etc.  I don't really mind too much if
it's 16, 18 or 21. I'd probably go for 18 at the moment.
There's also an argument that when a person becomes of that age,
the State shouldn't continue to tell them what they can/cannot do.
The State doesn't own society nor the people within it and people
should be free to make their own choices as they wish.
The law should encourage people to be more responsible and take 
more responsibility for their own lives. Thus there's another simple
argument that if you treat people like children, they soon begin to
act like children and we already have a serious problem in Britain
with many adults acting like children.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 03:36:44 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I'm not surprised one jot that you think this.  As said elsewhere, 
you are a nanny-state socialist from collar studs to boot laces.
Nanny state socialism - right up your street. Doubtless you want 
the rest of us to pay even more taxes to fund all this tripe.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 03:36:02 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I'm not so sure that "most people" would agree. If that were so how do
you explain why we currently have contrary laws on the books? and why
aren't these other changes being proposed at the same time as tobacco?
IMHO you underestimate the sheer amount of nanny-statism, social
engineering and apparatchik control which Blair's government (and 
some previous govts to an extent) wish to impose upon us.
For the reasons I previously explained.
Maybe there are those who love it when Blair's govt passes another new
law prescribing yet another part of our lives. Recognise anybody here?
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:08:25 GMT, Stephen Glynn
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
"Our lives" was used collectively - ie society in general.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:08:25 GMT, Stephen Glynn
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Add: this particular change would not affect me personally. Other
changes from Blair do. Eg ID Cards, bio-passports, terrorism acts etc.
They all amount to Blair wanting to prescribe what we can/cannot do.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:07:16 GMT, Stephen Glynn
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I'm not so sure. Only last week there was something on TV about under
age youths being set up by the police(?) to buy alcohol which then led
to the vendor being prosecuted.   Why won't the same thing happen
w/r/t tobacco? We already know that whatever the stated political
intention is of a new law, police often use it as they see fit.
Doubtless one of the arguments used by the feminasties.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:42:39 GMT, Stephen Glynn
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I'm not failing at all, it's the way you choose to interpret it. IE: I
was not attempting to draw any distinction between the various laws as
only affecting one group or another, simply to show that they all have
at least one thing in common as I described: an attempt to nanny-state
society in general, most likely because that's what many of Blair's
feminasties like to do with their time. When Hariet Harman isn't busy
breaking the rules herself by receiving confidential documents from
her lawyer sister, it's exactly the sort of thing her ilk like doing.
Further, if one takes your interpretation to a logical conclusion, one
could argue that Hitler's persecution of the Jews only affected a
particular group of people, so should the rest of the population shrug
their shoulders and say "well it doesn't affect me, so who cares?"
We know that's pretty much what happened in Germany 1930s...
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 05:12:27 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
As I alluded to previously, because they are selecting one issue and
ignoring all the rest, they must have a reason(s) other than a desire
to introduce consistency. That would be par for the course for Blair's
government because ISTM it has nothing to do with consistency and
everything to do with nanny-statism, control-freakery and/or capturing
a few more votes, which is what Blair's government is all about IMHO.
You should be able to grasp that viewpoint.
You are free to view comments by anyone as you wish but if you
include me, then please provide some evidence.
Indeed. If they introduced a standardisation Bill to provide
consistency across the board (at say 18). I've already described this.
Are you having a comprehension problem? or suffering from poor memory?
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @Chris_x: ""Dickhead is my Codename" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Fuck off then, moron - you're not wanted."
    @Chris_x: ""Mark, Devon" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Of course it's NannyStateism at its very worst.  Get a clue. "
    @Chris_x: ""Mark, Devon" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Nothing to do with the blind worship of "market forces" - I quite agree with 
you by the way that capitalism has screwed Britain up, the cartel of the 
supermarket giants etc - but with the simple concept of freedom of choice 
being restricted. Before you ask, I'm speaking as somebody who has never 
smoked but who doesn't want to impose petty restrictions on others who do, 
for some reason that I will probably never appreciate, enjoy their habit."
    @Chris_x: ""Frank Booth Snr" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:dmusl4$keb$<email_address>
<quote>
LOL !   So you can make a decision at sixteen to join the army and maybe die 
for "Israel" or Moronica but buying twenty Benson and Hedges in the 
knowledge that you might run an increased risk of cancer if you keep it up 
is somehow "wrong" ?   Get a life Stevie, and get your nose out of other 
people's business ! "
    @surfsup: ""Dickhead is my Codename" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
After being buggered by one of Tony's gay friends, wouldn't you like to be 
able to have a smoke to dull the pain. "
    @Chris_x: ""h" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:dmuvsq$4g9$<email_address>
<quote>
Dull the pain ?  Christ, he probably likes to *savour* it ...."
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:57:56 +0000 (UTC), Frank Booth Snr
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I'm not sure you fully understand everything I've said on this topic.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 06:48:12 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I know nothing of the sort.  Afaics Bills are prioritised according to
certain criteria, few of which benefit the citizens.  Ask yourself how
much time and taxpayers money has been wasted in recent years 
by Blair & Co on terror bills, RIPA, CCA and increasing police powers.
ID Cards yet to come. Blair is obsessed with control-freakery laws.
Blunkett surrounded himself with feminasties in the Home Office.
By contrast ask yourself how much time and taxpayers money has 
been spent on increasing the power of the citizen over the state 
or encouraging people to become more self-reliant and responsible.
As you might deduce I do not see government as the solution for many
issues. They are more often part of the problem by trying to engineer
society with their dogma.
There's no reason for it being this way and I'm sure there are plenty
of examples where complex Bills have been drafted and passed through
the HoC & HoL without too many hitches. It's usually contentious Bills
which get snared as Mr Blair recently discovered to his humiliation.
Ahhh! Firstly, I disagree with you on this in that I believe a single
piece of legislation could easily handle the issue. But is your real
pov appearing thru the mist?; do you not want there to be a standard
age of adult responsibility at 18 or whatever. Why is that? Do you
think it's fair that a 17yo can die for his country and pay taxes but
can't buy a packet of fags or a glass of beer or vote?
And just who are these political apparatchiks who decide these things?
I've already explained that in another post in the thread.
Basically by doing what I describe above.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 05:54:07 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
"the right-wing losers around here" and "You lot" are not phrases
which I associate myself with. I'm as critical of Big Money as many
others but the laws which Blair is pushing through are essentially to
increase their power over people and their lives, not to help ordinary
citizens. You are becoming a number to be *managed and taxed* by 
the Blair Crony Corporation and its friends in Big Money - if only you
could see that.
Sadly you are like so many sheep, you simply cannot see where the 
real threat is to your freedom and liberty: Big Government and its
iresistable urge for nanny-statism and control-freakery. It's about
state apparatchiks having power over *you*.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:12:01 GMT, Stephen Glynn
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
If the single measure had been about increasing the rights of 17yo
folks or sorting out the age of adulthood, fine, but it isn't. It's
about reducing their rights in one particular area.
Ask yourself: why should a person of 17 not be allowed to buy tobacco
but can fight/die for his country and pay taxes but not vote for or
against the government which takes the country to war? Why is the
Blair govt focusing on one issue when bigger/more unfair anomalies
exist?
I'm saying that by introducing a single change w/r/t buying tobacco
instead of attacking the whole issue of what the age of adulthood s/b
smacks of a typical Blair govt attempt to nanny-state* a group because
there must be a reason other than sorting out the bigger problem of at
what age a person can take responsibility for a variety of things in
his/her life. IMV that reason is Blair's govt obsession with power and
control-freakery. I've already suggested that 18 is probably the age
I'd opt for but I'm not fussed if it's 16 or 20.
*by nanny-state I mean the state taking decisions away from citizens
and placing them in the hands of the state on our behalf.
Well it was you who raised the distraction of 'group persecution' and
asked how it affects me. I just gave you one extreme example... IOW
because I'm not affected by the tobacco proposal doesn't mean that I
shrug my shoulders and ignore it. That's too easy.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:36:43 GMT, Maria <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Well said.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:19:47 GMT, AlanG <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I'm sure when they re-frame the law, they'll make sure it doesn't
prevent the police or trading standards from doing such things.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 08:30:54 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I disagree. I can see no sensible reason whatsover why a Bill cannot
be introduced to define the age of legal adulthood. Let's call it the
"Age of Legal Adulthood" Bill and it will simply define that at 18yo 
a person becomes legally responsible like all other adults.
The law doesn't have to list explicitly all the things which a person
of 18 can then do in the same way it doesn't list the things which 
you and I are responsible for doing.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @Chris_x: ""Frank Booth Snr" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:dmvd9r$2eb$<email_address>
<quote>
Poor "Stevie" ...."
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 11:21:19 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Yes. Britain should have a written Constitution and Bill of Rights
which are pro-actively supervised. Said constitution would define
exactly what the roles and responsibilities of government are and
government would simply not involve itself in other matters.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 11:34:28 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Don't kid me. Blair's government is incapable of "common sense ideas"
and has no concept whatsoever of doing anything "to protect our young
people". If that were true, Blair wouldn't have placed the country at
increased risk of terrorism by invading Iraq and Brown wouldn't have
made a pension-money grab in 1997. Truth is that it's running around
like a headless chicken trying to find policies which capture votes -
ie populist policies. What a way to run a government. I ask you.
You are goggle-eyed and besotted with socialism. It doesn't work.
The current state of public services is clear evidence of that.
What's up? Are you afraid of standing up on your own two feet and
taking responsibility for your own life?  Do tell.
My views are occasionally influenced by others.You seem to ignore that
I am a moderate libertarian and see government as fundamentally evil.
I'm soooo sorry if that distresses you comrade.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 11:14:41 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Of course you are comrade. 
You're a socialist from collar studs to boot laces. You wouldn't
survive without the government directing and controlling your life.
Common sense in your opinion but I haven't disagreed with either 
of these per se if you check back.
Please define "tangible improvements". 
Do you mean the banning of things which *you* don't like?
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 11:23:25 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Ooh nothing really.
Just suggesting that you wake up and smell the coffee.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @pah: "In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 4 Dec 2005 at 09:43:23, Chris X wrote :
<quote>
Yeah, like it reduces the numbers of under-age drinkers... :)
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham"
    @pah: "In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 4 Dec 2005 at 02:58:00, Dickhead is my
Codename wrote :
<quote>
ISTM the suggestion is not so much that it would be undesirable, but
that it would be unenforceable. After all, how many tobacconists are
prosecuted *now* for selling to underage kids?
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham"
    @pah: "In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 4 Dec 2005 at 03:36:44, Mark, Devon wrote :
<quote>
The point is - there's a big difference between encouraging people not
to do unhealthy things, and passing a law forcing them not to do it.
Most people accept that children's judgement in such matters can be
suspect, but once they reach adulthood, it should be their own choice. 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 15:57:48 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
No, the government has no *rights* whatsoever. It should have powers
granted to it under a constitution. FFS why on earth do you think
otherwise? Do you think you exist by courtesy of HMG or something?
Yes you are wrong. IMHO government has no rights except as mentioned
above.
Well you'd be wrong. I do not see market forces as *the* solution to
everything despite your repeated attempts to suggest otherwise. This
whole subject is way above the head of a nanny-state socialist.
Unless and until you grasp that the role of government is one of a
public servant,you will never understand what the correct relationship
should be between citizen and government and that there are many 
areas of life which govt should not get involved in. You are taking a
very typically selfish and shortsighted view of the whole subject ...
just like a true socialist in fact.
Exactly where the lines are drawn is a matter of future debate but
that lines need to be drawn is something which will become
increasingly obvious IMHO.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 5 Dec 2005 01:21:18 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?
Exactly who are these people with judgement? NuLabour ministers?
Rotfl. Don't make me laugh, they haven't got a clue.
They are mostly as thick as pigshit and twice as smelly.
This is pure nanny-statism coming out of Blair's NuLabour-luvvies.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 15:45:38 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I have written elsewhere that *if* this change was part of a cleaning
up of the age of adulthood - eg making it officially 18 or whatever,
then I wouldn't object too much. But I'd obviously expect to see other
changes included in the Bill, like the age at which a young person is
legally required to pay taxes etc. I have little problem with the law
saying: "at 18 (or whatever) you are an adult".
But since this proposal only applies to one small aspect of adulthood
and amounts to reducing a young person's rights, there can be little
reason for it other than yet another Labour attempt at tweaking
nanny-statism which we know is right up their street. They love it.
That's what NuLab are all about. Don't forget the utter shambles 
that Blunkett made of the drugs laws a while back to the point that
few people now understand what's legal anymore, police included.
There have been many laws in recent years from Blair's crony govt
which potentially affect the freedom and liberty of every person in
this country. See James Hammerton's website for details. Maybe 
you missed them or think "they don't apply to me, so that's alright".
I have not commented on smoking in restaurants.
See above.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 4 Dec 2005 16:38:11 -0800, "Mark, Devon" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Most socialist laws are described as "common sense", sadly only to
those passing them.
Yes.
Socialism is well entrenched in Britain and Blair has taken it to a
new high combining it with populism.
The future is bleak for freedom loving people.
Yes comrade.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Andrew Adams
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Perhaps the latter isn't the only option in 40 years.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 5 Dec 2005 14:55:38 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Oh I know how the system works thanks...
Since "granting powers" is no different to "derogating responsibility"
in the political game except in the choice of words, exactly how does
that differ from what I wrote? In both cases govt has no *rights*
(by this I mean it has no inalienable rights like a citizen should
have); they have powers granted to them under a constitution (or in
Britain's case without a constitution, hence my belief that we should
have one to limit govt meddling).
You are describing the current system of government which I believe 
is wrong. I've already said that the government should operate under 
a supervised constitution and BoR which would define its roles and
responsibilities.
I realise of course that socialists (of all colours in Britain) find
the concept of limited government and personal responsibility very
difficult to grasp. Such is the entrenchment of socialism in Britain.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:04:09 GMT, Andrew Adams
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I personally prefer the idea that people should be encouraged to take
responsibility for their own lives without govt nannying and wasteful
services like the NHS. People who accept this would doubtless pay
attention to their own health.
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On 5 Dec 2005 22:52:02 -0800, "Dickhead is my Codename"
<email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
I disagree. A fair number of posts on this NG are from people who
challenge the way the government operates in all sorts of areas. My
own particular hobby horse is that I strongly believe Britain needs a
written constitution/BoR and I often point out actions govts take
which would not be so if we had those safeguards.
This nonsense about 18yo folks buying cigarettes is one small example
where I believe the government has an interfering and nannying mindset
because at the end of the day, it won't be effective and just serves
to extend the nanny state deeper into our lives to satisfy socialists.
There are people who not only happily accept the growing nanny state
but actually argue in its favour but at the same time strongly deny
being socialist, such is the deception people bring upon themselves.
I believe a) change will come sooner than you think and b) it will 
not be of the liking of the current political classes. They will only
have themselves to blame. We have a government in office with 22% 
of the popular vote passing draconian laws which collectively reduce
our freedoms and subject us to growing amounts of state repression
and surveillance. Democracy and accountability is being salami-sliced
away in front of your own eyes. Will you submit to it or resist?
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
    @surfsup: ""hummingbird" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
 is being salami-sliced
<quote>
Salami = Islama:-))
Islam = I submit :-)) "
    @ZYLYDWINUSED: "On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:11:42 -0000, "h" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
<quote>
Are you suggesting Mr Blair's Islamic?
"I fear that the Prime Minister has become unhinged.
 He has always tended towards being messianic."
  Michael Portillo on Blair / Sunday Times:
<url>"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 39, "forum_name": "alt.politics.british.20140829.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.politics.parquet'}