BGD
-
Content Count
7,679 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by BGD
-
You spelt that wrong mate. He's Britain's biggest bellend. Thing is I bet you 95 percent of people on this forum and across the Internet will be slagging him and faking the piss but I bet they also wouldn't dare take on Ronnie Pickering Have a day off Cushty. The guy is a grade A dick head. He had no intention of getting out of that car. So you'll fight him then gaz my point wasn't weather he would get out of his car or act on it atall have a re read my point was I bet not many people on here would want to fight him but will take the piss on this forum Fight him? I'd drag him ou
-
Jesus, that's a lot of burgers from the van your business partner must be a right fat c**t. 300 bacon sarnies was a bit overkill I grant you ! Lol He pocketed half of them, it'll be bacon sarnies for tea round his every night for months!
-
Jesus, that's a lot of burgers from the van your business partner must be a right fat c**t.
-
You are technically breaking the law in the UK if your dog is out in public (whether it's on lead or not) and isnt wearing a collar with an ID tag with your name, postcode and telephone number on it. I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it though and personally I've never owned an ID tag in all my years of owning dogs.
-
The northerners will love it they sell Eccles cakes..............at 12 quid a go Anyway trust Wilf to choose the cheapest thing on the menu ! WILF wasn't actually planning on getting anything for himself from the menu, he was going to smuggle in a bag of chips
-
Is he an undertaker Nah he's a hitman
-
They've only used information Ronnie f***ing Pickering put out there in the public domain himself. If you don't want people taking the piss out of you when you make an international twat of yourself make sure your Facebook is set to private
-
That's exactly what I was doing, did you not see where I repeatedly told him his problem was with the judge not the HRA? It's why I got so fed up with him being so dense ignoring my posts, for feck sake it's catching! Len never said that it was the HRA. He said human rights, which is a concept not law. The concept of human rights effects our judiciary in ways separate to the actual HRA. I'm going to walk away now..... He did actually, he was changing his terminology with every post. You know what I think I'll follow your lead, this thread is making me dizzy
-
That's exactly what I was doing, did you not see where I repeatedly told him his problem was with the judge not the HRA? It's why I got so fed up with him being so dense ignoring my posts, for feck sake it's catching! trust me if she had went to jail there would have been a 1st class recorded delivery of her cps papers direct in a chartered plane to the ECHR. And she would of been laughed out of the ECHR because the HRA legislation doesn't protect people with depression from being given custodial sentences. It really is that simple.
-
That's exactly what I was doing, did you not see where I repeatedly told him his problem was with the judge not the HRA? It's why I got so fed up with him being so dense ignoring my posts, for feck sake it's catching!
-
obviously dropped a lot less than yourself. Right one more question, do you think the said woman should have gone to jail? Don't dodge the questionNo she shouldn't have. She posed no risk to the public and very little risk of reoffending so there was no reason to hand down a custodial sentence, just like the judge in her trial said when he gave her a suspended sentence so going by your logic Jeremy Bamber should never have been sent down, it was his family, not the general public he was killing, and as they were already dead he couldn't have done it again, no wonder this countries f****d An un
-
Has it ever occurred to you that unless you can manage to get through these threads without abusing people you don't agree with then perhaps you should keep out, regardless of how strongly you feel? Calling people stupid when they have not abused you is not in any way conducive to a progressive debate is it? You might think it's perfectly fair, but lets face it it's nothing more than abuse and simply leads to the deterioration of the debate, as so often happens on here. You wanted nothing more to do with me, so walked away, that was sensible and I respect that. Why not keep things civil for th
-
obviously dropped a lot less than yourself. Right one more question, do you think the said woman should have gone to jail? Don't dodge the question No she shouldn't have. She posed no risk to the public and very little risk of reoffending so there was no reason to hand down a custodial sentence, just like the judge in her trial said when he gave her a suspended sentence
-
Has it ever occurred to you that unless you can manage to get through these threads without abusing people you don't agree with then perhaps you should keep out, regardless of how strongly you feel? Calling people stupid when they have not abused you is not in any way conducive to a progressive debate is it? You might think it's perfectly fair, but lets face it it's nothing more than abuse and simply leads to the deterioration of the debate, as so often happens on here. You wanted nothing more to do with me, so walked away, that was sensible and I respect that. Why not keep things civil for th
-
And you still haven't grasped what the human rights act actually is :laugh: How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby?
-
I honestly don't understand how half the members on here manage to get through the day without killing themselves in some horrific accident. Honestly some of the most dense people I've ever met. If you had told me people this stupid existed I would of called you a liar before I had seen it with my own eyes.
-
Your problem is with the judge not the human rights act, you're obviously too thick to understand that though because I've told you three fecking times and you're still banging on about "loopholes" that don't exist. That'll be the end of my daily bashing my head against a wall session. You can't fix stupid.
-
The whole point of human rights is that they're universal so we've hardly got them confused, these seriously rare cases of scumbags gaming the system are a small price to pay to guarantee our own protection under the same laws.Would you really trust the government to decide who gets human rights and who doesn't? I'm pretty certain we can come up with legislation a bit more robust than that! Would I trust the government? Well I'm trusting the courts and they're letting me down! What's the difference? You obviously don't understand the concept of universal human rights so this conversatio
-
The whole point of human rights is that they're universal so we've hardly got them confused, these seriously rare cases of scumbags gaming the system are a small price to pay to guarantee our own protection under the same laws.Would you really trust the government to decide who gets human rights and who doesn't? I'm pretty certain we can come up with legislation a bit more robust than that! Would I trust the government? Well I'm trusting the courts and they're letting me down! What's the difference? You obviously don't understand the concept of universal human rights so this conversatio
-
The whole point of human rights is that they're universal so we've hardly got them confused, these seriously rare cases of scumbags gaming the system are a small price to pay to guarantee our own protection under the same laws.Would you really trust the government to decide who gets human rights and who doesn't? I'm pretty certain we can come up with legislation a bit more robust than that! Would I trust the government? Well I'm trusting the courts and they're letting me down! What's the difference? You obviously don't understand the concept of universal human rights so this conversat
-
The whole point of human rights is that they're universal so we've hardly got them confused, these seriously rare cases of scumbags gaming the system are a small price to pay to guarantee our own protection under the same laws. Would you really trust the government to decide who gets human rights and who doesn't? I'm pretty certain we can come up with legislation a bit more robust than that! Would I trust the government? Well I'm trusting the courts and they're letting me down! What's the difference? You obviously don't understand the concept of universal human rights so this conv
-
The whole point of human rights is that they're universal so we've hardly got them confused, these seriously rare cases of scumbags gaming the system are a small price to pay to guarantee our own protection under the same laws. Would you really trust the government to decide who gets human rights and who doesn't?
-
These were ordinary people on a religious pilgrimage in their own lands, even if you don't agree with them coming over here I think you can feel a bit of sympathy for ordinary Joe Muslim just going about his business being killed in a horrible accident. The fact you questioned your initial reaction at all proves what I've thought of you from your posts, you're a decent bloke when it comes down it WILF
-
You would be in trouble because your dog was dangerously out of control in a public place. This goes the same for killing any animal apart from exempt species (rats & rabbits) on land you have permission to hunt That's if you're caught
-
Definitely a big cat, you sure you didn't find it on walshie's property?
