Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Should the law protect people's 'right' to harm your kids?   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Prof. Sean Flynn writes 'Philip Morris has sued Uruguay and Australia, under bilateral investment treaties with Switzerland and Hong Kong, respectively, to challenge restrictions on branding on cigarette packages '. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Basically kids definitely are impacted by these branding things.

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 565.00 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 486.20 centrica AT APPROX 145.00 directline AT APPROX 358.70 g4s AT APPROX 252.90 gkn AT APPROX 298.40 glencore AT APPROX 343.00 m&s AT APPROX 319.30 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 839.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 601.00 standardlife AT APPROX 417.90

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: As are young adults and others. Unification: The spirit of the law dictates we protect those people from the manipulation which then causes harm to them. It does. Let's be true to that spirit.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 14:16:55 on 28/11/2017

Related points:

References:

http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/03/26/how-[..]and-exceptions/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.