Quote by Ben_welshminx
I find the correlation deeply disturbing too. Which is why I think it needs to be voiced. Taking offence is the prerogative of the individual of course especially when none is offered.
so what would you do with them bengy ??
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I find the correlation deeply disturbing too. Which is why I think it needs to be voiced. Taking offence is the prerogative of the individual of course especially when none is offered.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I find the correlation deeply disturbing too. Which is why I think it needs to be voiced. Taking offence is the prerogative of the individual of course especially when none is offered.
Quote by northwest-cpl
In this case, the intended recipient is offended and thus, under SH rules your comment is against the AUP.
Quote by GnV
In this case, the intended recipient is offended and thus, under SH rules your comment is against the AUP.
Quote by northwest-cpl
That's good then because there are a lot of deliberately inflammatory posts that are intended to be offensive that might need to be reported. icon_ I can see admin being kept busy if that is the case.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I would punish law breakers in accordance with local custom. A sentence of transportation for begging seems a little old fashioned and dracconian.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I would punish law breakers in accordance with local custom. A sentence of transportation for begging seems a little old fashioned and dracconian.
Quote by GnV
I would punish law breakers in accordance with local custom. A sentence of transportation for begging seems a little old fashioned and dracconian.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
snip...
i take it that those citizens are constructed of many religions and other minorities GnV
Quote by kentswingers777
That's good then because there are a lot of deliberately inflammatory posts that are intended to be offensive that might need to be reported. icon_ I can see admin being kept busy if that is the case.
Quote by GnV
In this case, the intended recipient is offended and thus, under SH rules your comment is against the AUP.
Quote by GnV
Indeed, I had it in writing only today from Admin. Privacy rules of course probably prevent me from posting the full content of the PM
Quote by kentswingers777
snip...
France seem to have things down to a tee and I believe that you should contribute something BEFORE you are allowed to get something from the system.
One of the many many reasons why this country is skint, and also is a laughing stock.
Quote by northwest-cpl
snip.. (for clarity)
As usual you only highlight part of a post and take that part out of context. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the part to which I was replying. It seems, according to GnV's pm from admin that it is against the AUP to deliberately post things that the poster knows will offend people. If the pm is correct then it is not merely 'my opinion' but the site owner's opinion.
Quote by GnV
In this case, the intended recipient is offended and thus, under SH rules your comment is against the AUP.
Quote by northwest-cpl
from admin that it is against the AUP to deliberately post things that the poster knows will offend people
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I still think France is cocking a snoop at the freedom of movement inherent in EU legislation by using a loop hole. It will never go to court of course because the oppressed minority don't have a voice.
It was ever thus.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Anti French? What a ridiculous accusation.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
"There is no loophole. It is enshrined in EU Law, and so it should be, that the right to freedom of movement is forfeit in the event that an individual or group of individuals shows such disregard for the Rule of Law as to make such action inevitable. "
Are you sure? I don't think it is. However I would agree that the european constitution did little to recognise the rights of indigenous itinerant peoples.
Quote by GnV
Anti French? What a ridiculous accusation.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
"There is no loophole. It is enshrined in EU Law, and so it should be, that the right to freedom of movement is forfeit in the event that an individual or group of individuals shows such disregard for the Rule of Law as to make such action inevitable. "
Are you sure? I don't think it is. However I would agree that the european constitution did little to recognise the rights of indigenous itinerant peoples.
Quote by vampanya
The point I'm making here is that from what i gather, the Roma that are being deported are the ones who are occupying illegal camps. The indiginous folk that are living by the law of the land are not being 'vitimised' and kicked out.
Quote by Kaznkev
snip...
As i said it is hard for us to understand a very different idea towards nationhood.i suppose an analogy could be drawn(very loosely)with the Jewish of Jewish maternal descent can move to Israel and become a national of that country,the cultural/religious definition overides you have Ethiopians and Russian far right skin heads both claiming to belong to the same nation.
Nationhood is a very complex thing,the idea of a nation state even more might make a good thread for someone to start.