Uganda - gay law | Swinging Heaven

28 Feb 2014

Quote by MidsCouple24
Perhaps when I said that "All gays saunas in the UK were registered as gay saunas" I was not stating a fact but making a prediction since not all UK gay saunas have been registered yet, I have no doubt there will be more and how could anyone possibly make a statement of fact about something that has not yet happened ?
It might sound like stating a fact when really it is just a prediction y'know like saying "we will be at war" is just a prediction and not a statement.
Interestingly though for us to be at war with an African nation, HM the Queen or the Monarch at that time would have to declare war on that Nation, so I take it your "prediction" when you say we will be at war means your predicting that our Monarch will declare war.

Firstly grow up and learn the difference between past, present and future tense. You stated that 'all gay saunas in the Uk are registered as gay saunas. Not will be, could be, might be, should be, possibly or any other way. You said they are. That is present tense and reflective on the past.
If you had used future tense and say that all gay saunas will be registered as gay saunas by 2020 you could possibly have a case to argue.
The fact remains you stated something as fact I stated something as a possibility I believe in. If your 'fact' was provable you would drop all your pointless attempts at point scoring and have proven yourself several days and pages of text ago.

28 Feb 2014

Quote by Trevaunance
You miss the point. A declaration of war requires two states and one must declare war on the other.

Sure about that?

"Whatever the technical or legal issues about a declaration of war, the fact is we are at war with terrorism".
Where is Terrorism? I've looked on the Map and I can't find that particular state?

28 Feb 2014

Quote by Toots

You miss the point. A declaration of war requires two states and one must declare war on the other.

Sure about that?

"Whatever the technical or legal issues about a declaration of war, the fact is we are at war with terrorism".
Where is Terrorism? I've looked on the Map and I can't find that particular state?
lol

Just an MP getting above his station as usual, he has not got the power to declare war on any Nation or what he believes to be a Nation.
Trevunance I am just funning with you, I answered your question about where I got what I believe to be facts days ago.
There are many things we believe to be true which cannot be proved as a fact such as the existence of God yet many believe it to be a fact. According to scientists Bumble bees cannot fly as they aerodynamically flawed in order to do this.

28 Feb 2014

Quote by MidsCouple24
War was not declared in Northern Ireland, as a result of which there are those seeing to charge members of 2 Para with murder and manslaughter for the killing of unarmed civilians (not proven)on Bloody Sunday, nobody has been charged with those offences when London was bombed during WWII because a state of war existed.
Tell those members of 2 Para there is no difference between war and conflict. Tell those charged with acts of terrorism that there is no difference between war and conflict when they are facing terrorism charges and not war crimes charges which still carry the death penalty.

So are you saying that had war been declared, the paras could not have been charged for murdering unarmed civilians? ( I'm using your words btw)
The Commander of the Luftwaffe was found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death at the Nurenberg Trials. I suspect the bombings of London and other allied cities played a part in his indictment.
You are still to explain what you perceive to be the difference between a war and a conflict. If you are going to say that there has to be a declaration of war for a conflict to become a war, there were no such formal declarations by the US in either the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan Wars.

28 Feb 2014

so two pages later and still no substantiated facts!!! I'm afraid Jed your argument against Rouge for stating a factual comment that you was talking Rubbishmust stand
and as usual you try to change the subject to something you do know a little about,, military conflict
but looking at it i think Rouge was a bit premature......... what he should have said was your talking............................ Bollocks
i applaud his politeness

28 Feb 2014

Quote by Lizaleanrob
so two pages later and still no substantiated facts!!! I'm afraid Jed your argument against Rouge for stating a factual comment that you was talking Rubbish must stand
and as usual you try to change the subject to something you do know a little about,, military conflict
but looking at it i think Rouge was a bit premature......... what he should have said was your talking............................ Bollocks
i applaud his politeness

You I just ignore since you only ever jump on the hate bandwagon and never say anything constructive to post in the forums, you just enjoy being a protagonist and being argumentative, nothing you say impresses or interests me, at least Rogue, Trevenance and a few others have something worth reading to say and we can learn from such people.

28 Feb 2014

I don't think there are any scientists who state that bumblebees can't fly!
But please start a thread on;
1. Bumblebees; flying and the existence of intelligent design
2. War; why its OK for some and not others
3. Russia; oops its not an invasion...
And I will be glad to debate until the cows come home!

28 Feb 2014

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I don't think there are any scientists who state that bumblebees can't fly!
But please start a thread on;
1. Bumblebees; flying and the existence of intelligent design
2. War; why its OK for some and not others
3. Russia; oops its not an invasion...
And I will be glad to debate until the cows come home!

Sorry (feigned apology look) to be such a pedant, but:
A/ Hadn't you dragged me by my hair somewhere to teach me a thing or two? Back early aren't you?
B/ Inkeeping with the spirit of this thread and the general nit-picking on minor points could you please state for the record:
What time the cows come home
How do they know when to come home & where is their home?
Young calves shouldn't be out too late, certainly not when it's getting dark.

28 Feb 2014

Quote by Toots
Sorry (feigned apology look) to be such a pedant, but:
A/ Hadn't you dragged me by my hair somewhere to teach me a thing or two? Back early aren't you?
B/ In keeping with the spirit of this thread and the general nit-picking on minor points could you please state for the record:
What time the cows come home
How do they know when to come home & where is their home?
Young calves shouldn't be out too late, certainly not when it's getting dark.

I accept your apology with the graciousness with which it was given and to answer your pedantic questions;
A) Been stuck in the man cave for a few days and no "toots" tootled by...
B) Cows are in the barn already, 17:00 as the sun is setting and its getting cold.
C) The barn is about 150 metres from the back door of our home.
D) I can show you pictures of the calves, they are happy little chappies....just getting a little fatter for market.
E) The lambs (of which there are 50 now) have just been born between 4 - 5 a night since the 14TH February and bouncing around the field, they look so sweet!
xxx

28 Feb 2014

But as the cows have been registered as milk producing cattle.....it would be wrong to ask when the cows are coming home...as technically there are no cows !!!

28 Feb 2014

Quote by deancannock
But as the cows have been registered as milk producing cattle.....it would be wrong to ask when the cows are coming home...as technically there are no cows !!!

That's the spirit *slaps recently redundant back* way to go dude.

28 Feb 2014

Glaring mistake though...
These are beef...don't do "milkin"

28 Feb 2014

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Glaring mistake though...
These are beef...don't do "milkin"

Pedant!

28 Feb 2014

Quote by Toots
Glaring mistake though...
These are beef...don't do "milkin"

Pedant!
:taz::laughabove:

28 Feb 2014

Quote by MidsCouple24
so two pages later and still no substantiated facts!!! I'm afraid Jed your argument against Rouge for stating a factual comment that you was talking Rubbish must stand
and as usual you try to change the subject to something you do know a little about,, military conflict
but looking at it i think Rouge was a bit premature......... what he should have said was your talking............................ Bollocks
i applaud his politeness

You I just ignore since you only ever jump on the hate bandwagon and never say anything constructive to post in the forums, you just enjoy being a protagonist and being argumentative, nothing you say impresses or interests me, at least Rogue, Trevenance and a few others have something worth reading to say and we can learn from such people.
easier than substantiating your claims i suppose
lol

:lol:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now off to rogues to get a decent steak

28 Feb 2014

Quote by MidsCouple24
so two pages later and still no substantiated facts!!! I'm afraid Jed your argument against Rouge for stating a factual comment that you was talking Rubbish must stand
and as usual you try to change the subject to something you do know a little about,, military conflict
but looking at it i think Rouge was a bit premature......... what he should have said was your talking............................ Bollocks
i applaud his politeness

You I just ignore since you only ever jump on the hate bandwagon and never say anything constructive to post in the forums, you just enjoy being a protagonist and being argumentative, nothing you say impresses or interests me, at least Rogue, Trevenance and a few others have something worth reading to say and we can learn from such people.
Clearly not! lol

6 Mar 2014

Quote by MidsCouple24
I read the comparison with the new laws in Uganda and Russia with interest and it is a good point! As far as I understand it the law in Russia makes it illegal to promote homosexuality positively. It is not illegal to be openly gay. This is a regressive law but it is not making it illegal to be a practising homosexual.
In Uganda it has been made illegal to be gay! To me that is as profound as making it illegal to have green eyes. You can’t help being born with green eyes; you can’t help being born gay! Whenever a state takes it upon itself to make being what you are illegal, whether it be Gay, Jewish, Kurdish, Gypsy it tends to be only the thin end of the wedge. I am not saying this will happen, I am reasonably sure it won’t. In that case political asylum seekers will not be an issue. But if it does, we can not get involved in another countries internal politics (again) so in this instance I hope we will have the humanity along with other countries to offer sanctuary to the persecuted.
If in a alternate universe, this law were past in the UK, half the members of SH would be arrested for admitting they were happy to participate in homosexual acts (see profiles stating gay, bi and bi curious)and the other half for knowingly harbouring persons with these tenancies.
Are well, at least prison wouldn't be boring.

I agree but would point out that whilst Russia has not taken the steps Uganda has in making being Gay or Lesbian an illegal practice, a recent TV programme did show that many Gays and Lesbians are being persecuted and suffering from acts of violence there, acts which apparently are being treated as minor priority by the authorities.
We all know that Adolf Hitler started with laws against people he deemed "unsuitable" which culminated in mass murder.
Russia too has a history under Stalin of murdering undesirables on a larger scale than Germany did under AH.
Uganda has the same history under Idi Amin.
Many other Nations around the world can be accused of mistreatment and a lack of acceptance for the Gay and Lesbian communities within their ranks.
As this post started on the subject of Asylum, the whole immigration subject is also relevant.
Figures released today show that the following
UK Net Immigration 212,000 (up 58,000) in the year ending last september
Migration itself from outside the EU has fallen but the overall figure is up despite the Government setting itself a target to reduce it to less than 100,000 per year.
209,000 of the 212,000 were EU citizens. (up 60,000)
The Majority of those from Spain, Portugal, Italy and Poland.
24,000 from Bulgaria and Romania. (up 15,000)
I would love to know the full figures of Migration FROM the UK but the most they said today is that far fewer people are migrating from here than in previous years.
I think you have to split migration from persons present themselves at our boarders and ask for political asylum, they have to demonstrate that they are in danger of being persecuted in there own country either for what they are or what they believe. Migration is the flow of people usually for there own benefit and not because they fear persecution.

6 Mar 2014

Quote by herts_darlings1
I read the comparison with the new laws in Uganda and Russia with interest and it is a good point! As far as I understand it the law in Russia makes it illegal to promote homosexuality positively. It is not illegal to be openly gay. This is a regressive law but it is not making it illegal to be a practising homosexual.
In Uganda it has been made illegal to be gay! To me that is as profound as making it illegal to have green eyes. You can’t help being born with green eyes; you can’t help being born gay! Whenever a state takes it upon itself to make being what you are illegal, whether it be Gay, Jewish, Kurdish, Gypsy it tends to be only the thin end of the wedge. I am not saying this will happen, I am reasonably sure it won’t. In that case political asylum seekers will not be an issue. But if it does, we can not get involved in another countries internal politics (again) so in this instance I hope we will have the humanity along with other countries to offer sanctuary to the persecuted.
If in a alternate universe, this law were past in the UK, half the members of SH would be arrested for admitting they were happy to participate in homosexual acts (see profiles stating gay, bi and bi curious)and the other half for knowingly harbouring persons with these tenancies.
Are well, at least prison wouldn't be boring.

I agree but would point out that whilst Russia has not taken the steps Uganda has in making being Gay or Lesbian an illegal practice, a recent TV programme did show that many Gays and Lesbians are being persecuted and suffering from acts of violence there, acts which apparently are being treated as minor priority by the authorities.
We all know that Adolf Hitler started with laws against people he deemed "unsuitable" which culminated in mass murder.
Russia too has a history under Stalin of murdering undesirables on a larger scale than Germany did under AH.
Uganda has the same history under Idi Amin.
Many other Nations around the world can be accused of mistreatment and a lack of acceptance for the Gay and Lesbian communities within their ranks.
As this post started on the subject of Asylum, the whole immigration subject is also relevant.
Figures released today show that the following
UK Net Immigration 212,000 (up 58,000) in the year ending last september
Migration itself from outside the EU has fallen but the overall figure is up despite the Government setting itself a target to reduce it to less than 100,000 per year.
209,000 of the 212,000 were EU citizens. (up 60,000)
The Majority of those from Spain, Portugal, Italy and Poland.
24,000 from Bulgaria and Romania. (up 15,000)
I would love to know the full figures of Migration FROM the UK but the most they said today is that far fewer people are migrating from here than in previous years.
I think you have to split migration from persons present themselves at our boarders and ask for political asylum, they have to demonstrate that they are in danger of being persecuted in there own country either for what they are or what they believe. Migration is the flow of people usually for there own benefit and not because they fear persecution.
I agree whole-heartedly with this except for this bit "they have to demonstrate that they are in danger of being persecuted in there own country" if they present themselves at our borders from that country then yes they need and should have our help, but let's say they left Uganda and arrived in France, then they travel by whatever means to the UK, then they should be treated as immigration applicants because being in France means they have already got away from the persecution of their own Country. If they for example fly from Uganda to the United Kingdom then then the responsibility of assisting them is ours, but if they come via another safe Country then the responsibility is that of the Nation they are now residing in, ie in this example, France.

6 Mar 2014

But they aren't resident in France, it's a transit route only!

6 Mar 2014

If they have arrived in France than they have escaped persecution and the EU rules say that they should apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach. Therefore France should treat them as asylum seekers and we should treat them as immigrants.

6 Mar 2014

Quote by Trevaunance
If they have arrived in France than they have escaped persecution and the EU rules say that they should apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach. Therefore France should treat them as asylum seekers and we should treat them as immigrants.

Nice to see that the EU, for once, agree with me lol

6 Mar 2014

Quote by MidsCouple24
If they have arrived in France than they have escaped persecution and the EU rules say that they should apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach. Therefore France should treat them as asylum seekers and we should treat them as immigrants.

Nice to see that the EU, for once, agree with me lol

Wasn't aware of that :-) good point!
So the question begs asking, why doesn't this happen?

6 Mar 2014

It's not as bad now as it has been in the past; It helps that we have stricter border controls on the Chunnel and legal jurisdiction at the other end.
Personally I don't think that other governments are complicit, but by immigrants transiting through there country, for example France, and ending up here it prevents the French from having to support them.

6 Mar 2014

Quote by Trevaunance
If they have arrived in France than they have escaped persecution and the EU rules say that they should apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach. Therefore France should treat them as asylum seekers and we should treat them as immigrants.

:thumbup:

6 Mar 2014

Quote by Rogue_Trader
But they aren't resident in France, it's a transit route only!

So where are they resident until they manage to get to the UK, because if they go by the standard route ie buy a ticket for a ferry they are refused entry whilst still in France by the UK Border/Customs control based on the French side of the ferry ports.
Often they are living in France for a while before they can find an illegal way of getting across the channel.
And if they are not resident in France why are they not applying for asylum there, because they certainly aren't residents of the UK either. I think we all know why of course, but it beggars the question, if you get to France your safe from persecution and can apply for asylum there can't you ?

7 Mar 2014

Mids, read up, that has been settled already.

7 Mar 2014

Quote by MidsCouple24
But they aren't resident in France, it's a transit route only!

So where are they resident until they manage to get to the UK, because if they go by the standard route ie buy a ticket for a ferry they are refused entry whilst still in France by the UK Border/Customs control based on the French side of the ferry ports.
Often they are living in France for a while before they can find an illegal way of getting across the channel.
And if they are not resident in France why are they not applying for asylum there, because they certainly aren't residents of the UK either. I think we all know why of course, but it beggars the question, if you get to France your safe from persecution and can apply for asylum there can't you ?
Mids, Trev had already pointed out that they should be. And EU rules state they should. But with no border controls in quite a few of the European states it means Asylum Seekers can travel with impunity until they reach our shores.
Maybe that is the problem? They get to border control between France and Italy and you are not challenged, therefore they keeping until they are challenged.
And one of the reasons a few reach our shores maybe quite simple. Their second language, if its English, come here, if its French they stay in France.
So you might have to look deeper and see who was the colonial power and therefore had the most influence and thereby dictates where they end up?

7 Mar 2014

Agreed, and it has been discussed at Government and European level that perhaps some Countries are deliberately not doing all that they can do in areas where border control could be abused, Sangatte being the main place discussed.
There is no doubt that not only did French official do little to prevent would be illegal immigrants camping there with a view to crossing the channel but as a Nation France did nothing to assist those people who were residing in their Country.
"Not our Problem" seems to be a policy adopted at many border checkpoints, when I lived in Switzerland I travelled regularly from Dover to Calais, my 7 seater and trailer packed to bursting with imports that would not have been permitted in France or Switzerland without paying some outrageous import duties, when stopped I simply explained that I was travelling to Verbier and no French official was interested in what I was carrying, when I reached the Suisse border I told the Customs Officials I was going to be passing through Switzerland on my way to Germany as I worked for the NAAFI there, again Officials waved me through, it was "not their problem".

9 Mar 2014

leave them to it.
nothing to do with us.
this is how trouble starts