Quote by Freckledbird
Thats how Mail readers choose their paper isnt it? Size
alliteration.
Sibilance, sometimes.
oooooo a new word. I LOVE that. :bounce:
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Another example of British madness
Can I exercise my unalienable right to express my views too please.
This strikes me as yet another thread quoting gutter press misinformation and bigotry. Quite what purpose that serves I have no idea. I only contribute to ensure the OP doesnt get the idea that everybody agrees and by holding the same view as the majority one must be right. (By the way democracies do not and never have been decided by a majority, if we want that to happen we have to move to a system of proportional representation.)
Thank the sky, the subsequent contributors have been able to quote a few facts for debate.
If I can quote from history too (a valid exercise in any debate) I believe the "asylum seeker" haters ought to be reminded of one particular boat load of asylum seekers in 1942. A ship,the Struma was turned away by the British, the ship was torpedoed in the Black Sea, of the 769 Jewish refugees on board only one survived.
And can anybody tell me why this soldier chap is being vilified here for entering into the debate? Is he an old hand who has upset folk before or a new face who needs to be put in his place?
This strikes me as yet another thread quoting gutter press misinformation and bigotry. Quite what purpose that serves I have no idea. I only contribute to ensure the OP doesnt get the idea that everybody agrees and by holding the same view as the majority one must be right. (By the way democracies do not and never have been decided by a majority, if we want that to happen we have to move to a system of proportional representation.)
Thank the sky, the subsequent contributors have been able to quote a few facts for debate.
If I can quote from history too (a valid exercise in any debate) I believe the "asylum seeker" haters ought to be reminded of one particular boat load of asylum seekers in 1942. A ship,the Struma was turned away by the British, the ship was torpedoed in the Black Sea, of the 769 Jewish refugees on board only one survived.
And can anybody tell me why this soldier chap is being vilified here for entering into the debate? Is he an old hand who has upset folk before or a new face who needs to be put in his place?
Sex God
Quote by benrums0n
Can I exercise my unalienable right to express my views too please.
This strikes me as yet another thread quoting gutter press misinformation and bigotry. Quite what purpose that serves I have no idea. I only contribute to ensure the OP doesnt get the idea that everybody agrees and by holding the same view as the majority one must be right. (By the way democracies do not and never have been decided by a majority, if we want that to happen we have to move to a system of proportional representation.)
Thank the sky, the subsequent contributors have been able to quote a few facts for debate.
If I can quote from history too (a valid exercise in any debate) I believe the "asylum seeker" haters ought to be reminded of one particular boat load of asylum seekers in 1942. A ship,the Struma was turned away by the British, the ship was torpedoed in the Black Sea, of the 769 Jewish refugees on board only one survived.
And can anybody tell me why this soldier chap is being vilified here for entering into the debate? Is he an old hand who has upset folk before or a new face who needs to be put in his place?
Well said ben :thumbup:
I shied away from making the same comment yesterday for fear of spoiling my generally good mood by entering into a slanging match. I dislike intensely the fact that there are people who contribute to this forum (as in life) who really do seem to think that only their opinion is valid.
I was angry that jumptoit appeared to be criticised simply for expressing an opinion which differed from the OPs.
Debate is always good. Polemic is not.
And thank you for the info about the Struma - have gone away and had a look at that. Will be using that info at some point at work - I like learning new things. Cheers.
Thanks Ben and Nola i was starting to think about digging a trench as the incoming fire was getting vicious.
I have been a member for years but dont usually get chance to comment on the forums or indeed get on line too much due to work! Just felt strongly about this one and wanted to put accross the other side of the argument.
Ben regarding the incident you mentioned believe it or not we cover details of that in our basic traing,oh so many years ago, and it can bring many a tear to an eye, humillity is a good character to have and not practised by many.
I have been a member for years but dont usually get chance to comment on the forums or indeed get on line too much due to work! Just felt strongly about this one and wanted to put accross the other side of the argument.
Ben regarding the incident you mentioned believe it or not we cover details of that in our basic traing,oh so many years ago, and it can bring many a tear to an eye, humillity is a good character to have and not practised by many.
Sex God
Quote by benrums0n
And can anybody tell me why this soldier chap is being vilified here for entering into the debate? Is he an old hand who has upset folk before or a new face who needs to be put in his place?
Who has vilified who Ben?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Of course the guy is completly innocent of everything, except inciting hatred, and believed to be involved in terrorist organising.
well he is a really radical idea...... this one is out of left field...
rather than basically intern him, which is what they are in effect doing....actually charge him with something!!!!
for everything you have said I could replace his name with for example "Nick Griffin" and make exactly the same arguement.....
so kent, should we treat them both the same?
Sex God
Quote by Lost
And can anybody tell me why this soldier chap is being vilified here for entering into the debate? Is he an old hand who has upset folk before or a new face who needs to be put in his place?
Who has vilified who Ben?
:thumbup:
Villification's a bit strong. I see strong opionions, forcefully put, some of which could be read as borderline agressive, if you were at all that way inclined, but then it's a controversial thread, and vigorous debate is what it's all about, eh?
All seems fairly even handed to me. ;) Neil x x x ;)
Just shows how we all see things differently....
I did not see that Jump was being picked on, he entered into a debate, typed his stuff, and got responses.
He held his own well, taught us all stuff by his contributions, and I am sure he will be sticking around more now.
They are both grown men, and well used to a bit of verbal, of that I am sure.
I did not see that Jump was being picked on, he entered into a debate, typed his stuff, and got responses.
He held his own well, taught us all stuff by his contributions, and I am sure he will be sticking around more now.
They are both grown men, and well used to a bit of verbal, of that I am sure.
Sex God
Quote by Kent
What a lot of human rights there are there.
There is only one word I would say about people like this, and their " human rights ". BOLLOX
It is such a pity that the people he spouts his rubbish at,or aims his vile ramblings at, cannot use the same human rights rubbish.
Give people human rights when they deseve them, but take it away when they do not.
I've shied away from replying to this bit up to now, cos I've been a bit reluctant to go down this partciular road, but I keep re-reading it, and I can't let it stand. Kent, whether you realise it or not, your belief that Human Rights should only apply to the deserving, however the deserving are defined, is bloody dangerous. Whether you recognise it or not, attitudes like that enable the BNPs and the Talebans of this world. Human Rights, and The Law ((( note capital letters. ))) are either universal, or they are not worth the paper they are written on. They have to be applied equally, to all, without fear or favour, no matter what, because the law is our last refuge from the tyrant. It is the only thing that keeps us from barbarism.
Stalin seemed to be of the opinion that the law only applied to good party members. Everyone else was fodder for the Gulag. Hitler believed that the law applied only to those of a non-jewish persuasion, though there was a bit of a grey area when it came to communists, trade unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally impaired, the physically disdabled, slavs, and other sub-humans. The Iranians, the Saudis, the Taleban, etc, seem to think the law mainly applies to good Islamic heterosexual men, so sorry love, yes I know you've just been , how awful, but by your own admission you've just had sex outside of wedlock, so technically, according to this 1400 year old book I have in me hand, we're gonna have to take you out now and drop concrete blocks on your head for a bit. Move along now, there's a love, cos there's a big crowd outside getting restless, and we wouldn't want things to turn ugly now would we?
Of course, I'm being very, very facetious, but the human rights we enjoy in this country were fought over, and won, over many, many centuries. People killed to win them for us. Lots of people died to preserve them. You seem to be arguing at times that with the stroke of a pen, we should undo their sacrifice, simply because it makes life a little bit easier for us. It doesn't. It makes life very, very dangerous indeed.
Neil x x x ;)
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
What a lot of human rights there are there.
There is only one word I would say about people like this, and their " human rights ". BOLLOX
It is such a pity that the people he spouts his rubbish at,or aims his vile ramblings at, cannot use the same human rights rubbish.
Give people human rights when they deseve them, but take it away when they do not.
I've shied away from replying to this bit up to now, cos I've been a bit reluctant to go down this partciular road, but I keep re-reading it, and I can't let it stand. Kent, whether you realise it or not, your belief that Human Rights should only apply to the deserving, however the deserving are defined, is bloody dangerous. Whether you recognise it or not, attitudes like that enable the BNPs and the Talebans of this world. Human Rights, and The Law ((( note capital letters. ))) are either universal, or they are not worth the paper they are written on. They have to be applied equally, to all, without fear or favour, no matter what, because the law is our last refuge from the tyrant. It is the only thing that keeps us from barbarism.
Stalin seemed to be of the opinion that the law only applied to good party members. Everyone else was fodder for the Gulag. Hitler believed that the law applied only to those of a non-jewish persuasion, though there was a bit of a grey area when it came to communists, trade unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally impaired, the physically disdabled, slavs, and other sub-humans. The Iranians, the Saudis, the Taleban, etc, seem to think the law mainly applies to good Islamic heterosexual men, so sorry love, yes I know you've just been , how awful, but by your own admission you've just had sex outside of wedlock, so technically, according to this 1400 year old book I have in me hand, we're gonna have to take you out now and drop concrete blocks on your head for a bit. Move along now, there's a love, cos there's a big crowd outside getting restless, and we wouldn't want things to turn ugly now would we?
Of course, I'm being very, very facetious, but the human rights we enjoy in this country were fought over, and won, over many, many centuries. People killed to win them for us. Lots of people died to preserve them. You seem to be arguing at times that with the stroke of a pen, we should undo their sacrifice, simply because it makes life a little bit easier for us. It doesn't. It makes life very, very dangerous indeed.
Neil x x x ;)
I actually think I love you a little bit more now Neil - even more than I did after 'the' photo in the challenge thread.
Tabloid press eh? Why has nobody replied about this link?
I suppose nothing really to argue about. Had I posted this from a National newspaper, I would have laughed at.
For those that have blinkers on, get down from your trees, take off those sandals, and read this properly!
Just in case some dont want to read the first link, I have added a few more.
I suppose nothing really to argue about. Had I posted this from a National newspaper, I would have laughed at.
For those that have blinkers on, get down from your trees, take off those sandals, and read this properly!
Just in case some dont want to read the first link, I have added a few more.
Sex God
A cautionary tale for those who believe what they read on Wikipedia.
Sex God
Oh Kenty, I'm fully aware of who this man is, and what he stands for. Thanks for the wikipedia link, but given the vast information resource I have available at my fingertips as an internet user, I prefer to do my own reading from more accurate and varied sources. 
;)
Noone is denying that Abu Qatada is an odious little toad, who given half a chance would undo everything that's good about this country. That is after all what so-called Al-Qaeda are after, isn't it. I can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm trying to get through to you is that some of your beliefs actually help people like him achieve their aims. The main goal of Islamist terror is after all to make us like them, isn't it? No way am I prepared to help them do that to us.
Neil x x x ;)
;)Noone is denying that Abu Qatada is an odious little toad, who given half a chance would undo everything that's good about this country. That is after all what so-called Al-Qaeda are after, isn't it. I can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm trying to get through to you is that some of your beliefs actually help people like him achieve their aims. The main goal of Islamist terror is after all to make us like them, isn't it? No way am I prepared to help them do that to us.
Neil x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
Oh Kenty, I'm fully aware of who this man is, and what he stands for. Thanks for the wikipedia link, but given the vast information resource I have available at my fingertips as an internet user, I prefer to do my own reading from more accurate and varied sources.
Noone is denying that Abu Qatada is an odious little toad, who given half a chance would undo everything that's good about this country. That is after all what so-called Al-Qaeda are after, isn't it. I can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm trying to get through to you is that some of your beliefs actually help people like him achieve their aims. The main goal of Islamist terror is after all to make us like them, isn't it? No way am I prepared to help them do that to us.
Neil x x x ;)
Agreed Neil.
Yes he is a toad, and whilst he has not been convicted of anything over here, to me he is obviously a coward too.
He does not do the dirty work he preaches, he gets others to do it.I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that this person is a danger to our national security, and in my opinion he preaches others to commit sick acts. Of which include murder.
Now if people want this toad to remain in this country, with all he stands for, and what he has preached others to do, then I hope to God that the next time his " irk " commit another foul act of terrorism, that they are not around to witness it.
I really do not give a toss whether he has commited an offence here or not, the fact to me is that he has urged others to kill and injure....my opinion and on that basis I do not want him anywhere near this country, or his irks.
National security and the safety of British subjects is of paramount importance, and should be this Governments most prized job.
Sex God
Quote by benrums0n
So nobody has a link to any respectable information sources that might tell me what this bloke is accused of then?
I could put up the BBC profile link ben...... but I am sure the next thing that would happen is they they would be accused of having a "leftist" agenda
Kent feel i must comment again on something you said (not like me i know).
He at this particular time is no danger to national security at all as we are holding him (all be it without any charges being brought by the Uk) and know exactly where he is and silent.
However do you not feel that if he is extradited to Jordan and dependant on what they do to him (ie they cant torture him or as you want make him into a game of hangman) then he could then be an increased threat to us and anyone he chooses.
I say this because Jordan are hardly re knowned for their security and in his homeland he will have many more friends with many more resources to get him out and make him disappear thus making him a massive threat.
So surely the answer has to be to charge him with whatever evidence we may have (if any) and keep him locked up where we can keep an eye and 4 strapping prison guards on him.
Sorry to waffle i am not as educated as a lot of you and not good at putting my point accross quickly.
He at this particular time is no danger to national security at all as we are holding him (all be it without any charges being brought by the Uk) and know exactly where he is and silent.
However do you not feel that if he is extradited to Jordan and dependant on what they do to him (ie they cant torture him or as you want make him into a game of hangman)
then he could then be an increased threat to us and anyone he chooses.I say this because Jordan are hardly re knowned for their security and in his homeland he will have many more friends with many more resources to get him out and make him disappear thus making him a massive threat.
So surely the answer has to be to charge him with whatever evidence we may have (if any) and keep him locked up where we can keep an eye and 4 strapping prison guards on him.
Sorry to waffle i am not as educated as a lot of you and not good at putting my point accross quickly.
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death … How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think … The party should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!"
- Adolf Hitler
Quote by jumptoit
Kent feel i must comment again on something you said (not like me i know).
He at this particular time is no danger to national security at all as we are holding him (all be it without any charges being brought by the Uk) and know exactly where he is and silent.
However do you not feel that if he is extradited to Jordan and dependant on what they do to him (ie they cant torture him or as you want make him into a game of hangman)
I say this because Jordan are hardly re knowned for their security and in his homeland he will have many more friends with many more resources to get him out and make him disappear thus making him a massive threat.
So surely the answer has to be to charge him with whatever evidence we may have (if any) and keep him locked up where we can keep an eye and 4 strapping prison guards on him.
Sorry to waffle i am not as educated as a lot of you and not good at putting my point accross quickly.
Sorry but the real answer is to send him " home ", where he has been tried and convicted of very serious offences.
It is not our job to intervene. He is an illegal in this country....fact. So why should we play ball?
It is easy to do really. We should be able to kick him out on the grounds he is here illegaly, which he is.
The trouble is there are so many countries that would not take him, and the ones that would, are the ones where he is wanted.
IF he was a British citizen I could understand this Government taking this stance but....he is NOT British.
He has been found guilty of serious charges in his home country, and we have no right to intervene, just as Europe should have no right to tell us what we can and cannot do.
That is what I think is really pissing people off more than anything. The fact that out laws are not letting our judicial system do the job they should be doing.
It should be so easy. He is wanted in his home country. He has been convicted to life imprisonment. They apply to the UK to extradite him. The courts do the paperwork and then send him back. The rules he is using to stay, and I bet we are picking up the tab for his legal aid too?
So that is even funnier. The Government are funding him, to fight the very people that give him the money. Now if that is not crazy, I do not know what is.
Quote kent
Sorry but the real answer is to send him " home ", where he has been tried and convicted of very serious offences.
It is not our job to intervene. He is an illegal in this country....fact. So why should we play ball?
It is easy to do really. We should be able to kick him out on the grounds he is here illegaly, which he is.
Sorry Kent Im a bit confuddled-
Are we talking about the bloke whos been tortured in Jordan or the guys on that boat in 1942?
Sorry but the real answer is to send him " home ", where he has been tried and convicted of very serious offences.
It is not our job to intervene. He is an illegal in this country....fact. So why should we play ball?
It is easy to do really. We should be able to kick him out on the grounds he is here illegaly, which he is.
Sorry Kent Im a bit confuddled-
Are we talking about the bloke whos been tortured in Jordan or the guys on that boat in 1942?
