Libyan Soldiers To Claim Asylum......

[neil82 1,088]

so please tell us uneducated thickies why we should not be outraged when criminals who should be sent down and immigrants who should be thrown out get away with so much using (abusing) the human rights act because to this thicko the only ones gaining are the people who should, by their own actions, have forfeited such protection, and the bloody parasitic lawyers who make so much money out of it

[Lenmcharristar 10,234]

so please tell us uneducated thickies why we should not be outraged when criminals who should be sent down and immigrants who should be thrown out get away with so much using (abusing) the human rights act because to this thicko the only ones gaining are the people who should, by their own actions, have forfeited such protection, and the bloody parasitic lawyers who make so much money out of it

neil, you won't get through to him, he rang the Sinn Fein office and said he's being asked truthful sensible questions by joe public about a murderer, what should be say? The answer he got was, use big fance words like, dialogue, Good Friday agreement, peaceful protests, cross community relations etc etc but the top rule is deny everything and blame somebody else.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

 

 

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.

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 the sake of a hopefully enlightening debate?

It's hard to have a reasonable debate with someone that is busy shadow boxing and not actually addressing the points I'm making. After the third time trying to explain something to someone and having them reply as if I hadn't said anything I get bored and let them know how thick they are

 

 

I understand that fella, I do. I'm sure we have all been there and you seem to attract plenty of confrontation. I find myself the polar opposite of you ethically and politically but you at least seem to question things, which I respect. As someone who I would consider half intelligent, do you not think even when faced with a debate with your worst enemy, that keeping things civil and respectful is the only decent way to behave? For the sake of making progress and for the sake of, well be a gent?

 

Sometimes I want to throttle someone with logic and hit them with a f***ing dunce hammer, but doing that does nothing at all for my argument and nothing at all for progress. To be honest, in the cold light of day I always feel a little ashamed with myself when I resort to abuse, even when I genuinely consider the victim a completely f***ing moronic pond scum! It either represents me loosing my cool and sensibility or an emotional anger brought on through actually not having a robust argument that should be able to speak for itself.

 

None of that is intended as a slight, we all do it, but it's a shame to see someone who is capable of holding their corner in an argument resort to it. Especially at the expense of the actual debate itself.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Born Hunter

[neil82 1,088]

 

 

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?

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

 

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

[BGD 6,437]

 

 

 

 

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.

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 the sake of a hopefully enlightening debate?

It's hard to have a reasonable debate with someone that is busy shadow boxing and not actually addressing the points I'm making. After the third time trying to explain something to someone and having them reply as if I hadn't said anything I get bored and let them know how thick they are

I understand that fella, I do. I'm sure we have all been there and you seem to attract plenty of confrontation. I find myself the polar opposite of you ethically and politically but you at least seem to question things, which I respect. As someone who I would consider half intelligent, do you not think even when faced with a debate with your worst enemy, that keeping things civil and respectful is the only decent way to behave? For the sake of making progress and for the sake of, well be a gent?

 

Sometimes I want to throttle someone with logic and hit them with a f***ing dunce hammer, but doing that does nothing at all for my argument and nothing at all for progress. To be honest, in the cold light of day I always feel a little ashamed with myself when I resort to abuse, even when I genuinely consider the victim a completely f***ing moronic pond scum! It either represents me loosing my cool and sensibility or an emotional anger brought on through actually not having a robust argument that should be able to speak for itself.

 

None of that is intended as a slight, we all do it, but it's a shame to see someone who is capable of holding their corner in an argument resort to it. Especially at the expense of the actual debate itself.

You're a reasonable enough bloke and you make good points but Lemn was having a dishonest debate there was nothing to be gained from it so I took the opportunity to vent my spleen.

You're right though I should make effort to be more of a gent, especially when dealing with the educationally subnormal

[Lenmcharristar 10,234]

That's it deny everything and blame someone else

[BGD 6,437]

 

 

 

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?

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

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 unrepentant mass killer compared to someone that supplied a phone.

 

Can you not see how these cases are different? How one could pose more of a risk of reoffending than the other?

 

This is what I'm talking about, dishonest debate

[Lenmcharristar 10,234]

Dishonest? The only dishonesty here was the injustice for the soldiers families. She was involved and has been involved in plenty of other terrorist activities. It's because it's against British soldiers that you won't condemn it.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

LOL, as an educated superior could you not see that the crux of your disagreement was that you were arguing over the actual human rights legislation, whereas Len was arguing over the imposition of supposed human rights in the judicial system generally? As an educated superior would it not have just been simpler to point this out and say "we're coming from two different angles here Len, mate, let me explain....."?

 

Or is it perhaps that you both were so adamant that you were each right (and of course from your own points of view, you were) that you couldn't see that?

[Lenmcharristar 10,234]

LOL, as an educated superior could you not see that the crux of your disagreement was that you were arguing over the actual human rights legislation, whereas Len was arguing over the imposition of supposed human rights in the judicial system generally? As an educated superior would it not have just been simpler to point this out and say "we're coming from two different angles here Len, mate, let me explain....."?

 

Or is it perhaps that you both were so adamant that you were each right (and of course from your own points of view, you were) that you couldn't see that?

bh, if a person involved in murder is spared jail because he or she may get depressed, do you think that's right or wrong?

[BGD 6,437]

LOL, as an educated superior could you not see that the crux of your disagreement was that you were arguing over the actual human rights legislation, whereas Len was arguing over the imposition of supposed human rights in the judicial system generally? As an educated superior would it not have just been simpler to point this out and say "we're coming from two different angles here Len, mate, let me explain....."?

 

Or is it perhaps that you both were so adamant that you were each right (and of course from your own points of view, you were) that you couldn't see that?

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!

[Born Hunter 17,907]

 

LOL, as an educated superior could you not see that the crux of your disagreement was that you were arguing over the actual human rights legislation, whereas Len was arguing over the imposition of supposed human rights in the judicial system generally? As an educated superior would it not have just been simpler to point this out and say "we're coming from two different angles here Len, mate, let me explain....."?

 

Or is it perhaps that you both were so adamant that you were each right (and of course from your own points of view, you were) that you couldn't see that?

bh, if a person involved in murder is spared jail because he or she may get depressed, do you think that's right or wrong?

 

 

Well in that simple case I'd say it's wrong. But BGD sounds correct that the actual human rights legislation had nothing to do with it, however I also agree with you that the sentence was clearly based on this liberal rights bollocks that seems to have infected society, the judge deeming that the murderer had a right not to suffer potential depression through prison. I agree with both of you. This general attitude in society that allows for these injustices to occur needs a big social realignment.

[Lenmcharristar 10,234]

 

LOL, as an educated superior could you not see that the crux of your disagreement was that you were arguing over the actual human rights legislation, whereas Len was arguing over the imposition of supposed human rights in the judicial system generally? As an educated superior would it not have just been simpler to point this out and say "we're coming from two different angles here Len, mate, let me explain....."?

 

Or is it perhaps that you both were so adamant that you were each right (and of course from your own points of view, you were) that you couldn't see that?

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.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

 

LOL, as an educated superior could you not see that the crux of your disagreement was that you were arguing over the actual human rights legislation, whereas Len was arguing over the imposition of supposed human rights in the judicial system generally? As an educated superior would it not have just been simpler to point this out and say "we're coming from two different angles here Len, mate, let me explain....."?

 

Or is it perhaps that you both were so adamant that you were each right (and of course from your own points of view, you were) that you couldn't see that?

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.....

[BGD 6,437]

 

 

LOL, as an educated superior could you not see that the crux of your disagreement was that you were arguing over the actual human rights legislation, whereas Len was arguing over the imposition of supposed human rights in the judicial system generally? As an educated superior would it not have just been simpler to point this out and say "we're coming from two different angles here Len, mate, let me explain....."?

 

Or is it perhaps that you both were so adamant that you were each right (and of course from your own points of view, you were) that you couldn't see that?

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.