Look what you've done!

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 18 of 28 < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 8.10pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.13pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.01pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 6.51pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 6.36pm If the Human Rights act is scrapped then that would be the best thing that could happen. Because of this criminal's and terrorist's charter we can't get rid of these fkg parasites who come over here stowed away on the back of trucks and come here to claim benefits and enjoy a health system that they've NEVER even contributed to. It's the reason why prisoners may get the vote, it's the reason that people are allowed to sue over something that happened over 100 hundred years ago ie people suing over the slave trade. It's the reason that terrorists, murderers and rapists have more bloody rights than their victims. Screw the human rights act and screw the European Court of Human Rights. The sooner we're without these riduclous acts the better. it can only be an improvement if the Human Rights Act is consigned to the dustbin of history. Well the right to a fair trial has gone. Did you know that you can now be arrested, interned and not know why until you appear before a judge in a secret court? Bloody human rights, getting in the way of giving people basic human rights. The human rights act is open to abuse, it needs to be replaced by a more common sense bill that doesn't give criminals or immigrants rights that they simply don't deserve. The term 'human rights' means something totally different these days, and it gives all these chancers on the make a way to get things that they simply have NO right to. More like Human Liberty taking. I never questioned the right to a fair trial. You expect this lot (let alone any other lot) to come up with anything 'common sense' f*ing hell, people are so gullible for abstract nouns... What would be part of a 'common sense' bill of human rights? Have a look through the current Human rights act and tell us what should be removed, in your opinion. [Link] I've had a look through and there seem to be enough legal caveats to cover terrorism. Out of interest, what human rights should immigrants be deprived of? How many instances of the flouting of the human rights act , the sort that you are alluding to, are there in the UK per year? As for the right to a fair trial. That's gone I'm afraid. Something else you can thank David for... Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 7.14pm) You're obviously a dyed in the wool lefty. Haven't been on the hol for long have you? Quote** The Human rights act is an absolute disaster. I'll tell you what rights immigrants shouldn't have the right to coming here and ripping the dam system off for a start. I don't pay my taxes to support some scum bag who hates our way of life but will willingly take our charity. The current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable. Half these cockroaches should be deported and not let back in. I don't expect any politician of any political persuasion to come up with anything common sense, especially those of left leaning views. As for what should be removed from the current human rights act? Well I wouldn't remove anything......I'd tear the whole dam thing up. It was because of the human rights act that we couldn't get rid of captain hook for the best part of ten years, that Choudary couldn't be deported because of his 'right to a family life'. What about the god dam right of the people of this country not to be blown up on their daily commute? Hell there was even some judge who refused to deport an immigrant, WHO WAS HERE ILLEGALY, because he had a cat, and therefore had 'a family life' in this country. My view will NOT change on it, it should be ripped up, end of. Do you even know what the human rights act contains? Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history? I've been on the HOL a few years but just ventured into this part. I could list plenty more examples but I know I'm right so won't bother. It should go down as one of the most disasterous documents in recent history. The whole thing is an abomination and an affront to common sense.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 8.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.13pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.01pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 6.51pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 6.36pm

If the Human Rights act is scrapped then that would be the best thing that could happen. Because of this criminal's and terrorist's charter we can't get rid of these f**k**g parasites who come over here stowed away on the back of trucks and come here to claim benefits and enjoy a health system that they've NEVER even contributed to. It's the reason why prisoners may get the vote, it's the reason that people are allowed to sue over something that happened over 100 hundred years ago ie people suing over the slave trade. It's the reason that terrorists, murderers and rapists have more bloody rights than their victims. Screw the human rights act and screw the European Court of Human Rights. The sooner we're without these riduclous acts the better. it can only be an improvement if the Human Rights Act is consigned to the dustbin of history.

Well the right to a fair trial has gone. Did you know that you can now be arrested, interned and not know why until you appear before a judge in a secret court?

Bloody human rights, getting in the way of giving people basic human rights.

The human rights act is open to abuse, it needs to be replaced by a more common sense bill that doesn't give criminals or immigrants rights that they simply don't deserve. The term 'human rights' means something totally different these days, and it gives all these chancers on the make a way to get things that they simply have NO right to. More like Human Liberty taking. I never questioned the right to a fair trial.

You expect this lot (let alone any other lot) to come up with anything 'common sense'

f***ing hell, people are so gullible for abstract nouns...

What would be part of a 'common sense' bill of human rights?

Have a look through the current Human rights act and tell us what should be removed, in your opinion.

[Link]

I've had a look through and there seem to be enough legal caveats to cover terrorism.

Out of interest, what human rights should immigrants be deprived of?

How many instances of the flouting of the human rights act , the sort that you are alluding to, are there in the UK per year?

As for the right to a fair trial. That's gone I'm afraid. Something else you can thank David for...

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 7.14pm)

You're obviously a dyed in the wool lefty.

Haven't been on the hol for long have you?

Quote The Human rights act is an absolute disaster. I'll tell you what rights immigrants shouldn't have the right to coming here and ripping the dam system off for a start. I don't pay my taxes to support some scum bag who hates our way of life but will willingly take our charity. The current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable. Half these cockroaches should be deported and not let back in. I don't expect any politician of any political persuasion to come up with anything common sense, especially those of left leaning views. As for what should be removed from the current human rights act? Well I wouldn't remove anything......I'd tear the whole dam thing up. It was because of the human rights act that we couldn't get rid of captain hook for the best part of ten years, that Choudary couldn't be deported because of his 'right to a family life'. What about the god dam right of the people of this country not to be blown up on their daily commute? Hell there was even some judge who refused to deport an immigrant, WHO WAS HERE ILLEGALY, because he had a cat, and therefore had 'a family life' in this country. My view will NOT change on it, it should be ripped up, end of.

Do you even know what the human rights act contains?

Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history?

I've been on the HOL a few years but just ventured into this part. I could list plenty more examples but I know I'm right so won't bother. It should go down as one of the most disasterous documents in recent history. The whole thing is an abomination and an affront to common sense.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 8.19pm
Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.10pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.13pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.01pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 6.51pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 6.36pm If the Human Rights act is scrapped then that would be the best thing that could happen. Because of this criminal's and terrorist's charter we can't get rid of these fkg parasites who come over here stowed away on the back of trucks and come here to claim benefits and enjoy a health system that they've NEVER even contributed to. It's the reason why prisoners may get the vote, it's the reason that people are allowed to sue over something that happened over 100 hundred years ago ie people suing over the slave trade. It's the reason that terrorists, murderers and rapists have more bloody rights than their victims. Screw the human rights act and screw the European Court of Human Rights. The sooner we're without these riduclous acts the better. it can only be an improvement if the Human Rights Act is consigned to the dustbin of history. Well the right to a fair trial has gone. Did you know that you can now be arrested, interned and not know why until you appear before a judge in a secret court? Bloody human rights, getting in the way of giving people basic human rights. The human rights act is open to abuse, it needs to be replaced by a more common sense bill that doesn't give criminals or immigrants rights that they simply don't deserve. The term 'human rights' means something totally different these days, and it gives all these chancers on the make a way to get things that they simply have NO right to. More like Human Liberty taking. I never questioned the right to a fair trial. You expect this lot (let alone any other lot) to come up with anything 'common sense' f*ing hell, people are so gullible for abstract nouns... What would be part of a 'common sense' bill of human rights? Have a look through the current Human rights act and tell us what should be removed, in your opinion. [Link] I've had a look through and there seem to be enough legal caveats to cover terrorism. Out of interest, what human rights should immigrants be deprived of? How many instances of the flouting of the human rights act , the sort that you are alluding to, are there in the UK per year? As for the right to a fair trial. That's gone I'm afraid. Something else you can thank David for... Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 7.14pm) You're obviously a dyed in the wool lefty. Haven't been on the hol for long have you? Quote** The Human rights act is an absolute disaster. I'll tell you what rights immigrants shouldn't have the right to coming here and ripping the dam system off for a start. I don't pay my taxes to support some scum bag who hates our way of life but will willingly take our charity. The current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable. Half these cockroaches should be deported and not let back in. I don't expect any politician of any political persuasion to come up with anything common sense, especially those of left leaning views. As for what should be removed from the current human rights act? Well I wouldn't remove anything......I'd tear the whole dam thing up. It was because of the human rights act that we couldn't get rid of captain hook for the best part of ten years, that Choudary couldn't be deported because of his 'right to a family life'. What about the god dam right of the people of this country not to be blown up on their daily commute? Hell there was even some judge who refused to deport an immigrant, WHO WAS HERE ILLEGALY, because he had a cat, and therefore had 'a family life' in this country. My view will NOT change on it, it should be ripped up, end of. Do you even know what the human rights act contains? Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history? I've been on the HOL a few years but just ventured into this part. I could list plenty more examples but I know I'm right so won't bother. It should go down as one of the most disasterous documents in recent history. The whole thing is an abomination and an affront to common sense. Which parts aren't common sense? I bet you can't come up with more than a handful of cases where someone has made an arse of the whole thing.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 8.19pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.13pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.01pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 6.51pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Well the right to a fair trial has gone. Did you know that you can now be arrested, interned and not know why until you appear before a judge in a secret court?

Bloody human rights, getting in the way of giving people basic human rights.

You expect this lot (let alone any other lot) to come up with anything 'common sense'

f***ing hell, people are so gullible for abstract nouns...

What would be part of a 'common sense' bill of human rights?

Have a look through the current Human rights act and tell us what should be removed, in your opinion.

[Link]

I've had a look through and there seem to be enough legal caveats to cover terrorism.

Out of interest, what human rights should immigrants be deprived of?

How many instances of the flouting of the human rights act , the sort that you are alluding to, are there in the UK per year?

As for the right to a fair trial. That's gone I'm afraid. Something else you can thank David for...

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 7.14pm)

You're obviously a dyed in the wool lefty.

Haven't been on the hol for long have you?

Do you even know what the human rights act contains?

Which parts aren't common sense?

I bet you can't come up with more than a handful of cases where someone has made an arse of the whole thing.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jul 15 8.49pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm Quote The Human rights act is an absolute disaster. I'll tell you what rights immigrants shouldn't have the right to coming here and ripping the dam system off for a start. I don't pay my taxes to support some scum bag who hates our way of life but will willingly take our charity. The current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable. Half these cockroaches should be deported and not let back in. I don't expect any politician of any political persuasion to come up with anything common sense, especially those of left leaning views. As for what should be removed from the current human rights act? Well I wouldn't remove anything......I'd tear the whole dam thing up. It was because of the human rights act that we couldn't get rid of captain hook for the best part of ten years, that Choudary couldn't be deported because of his 'right to a family life'. What about the god dam right of the people of this country not to be blown up on their daily commute? Hell there was even some judge who refused to deport an immigrant, WHO WAS HERE ILLEGALY, because he had a cat, and therefore had 'a family life' in this country. My view will NOT change on it, it should be ripped up, end of. Do you even know what the human rights act contains? Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history? Unfortunately,the poster who raised the "cat case" appeared to be so busy working themselves into a lather describing immigrants generically as "cockroaches" of whom 50% as such should be deported (Adolf and Goebbels would have been proud of the subtlety of terminology and analysis utilised,just replace "immigrants" with "jews",they swallowed (being an open minded unprejudiced person no doubt) Theresa May's ignorant rabble rousing propaganda (echoing, surprise surprise, the open minded and unbiased approach of the Tory-supporting press) at face value. The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim": "Addressing party activists in Manchester, Mrs May attacked what she said were excessive uses of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to family life. She said Article 8 had been used to prevent the removal of foreign national prisoners and illegal immigrants. She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat." Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK. "That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision." For the senior judges to come out with something like that would not be an everyday thing and illustrates how so much c..p is spouted by so many about the Human Rights Act and who frequently have no experience of actually seeing it in general operation in the Courts on a regular basis.Rather,they retreat into the blind prejudice comfort zone of a few instances,accurate or otherwise( (ie any "system" can be and is abused by a few, including those they support) and ignore the many more positives. Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jul 15 8.49pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm

Do you even know what the human rights act contains?

Unfortunately,the poster who raised the "cat case" appeared to be so busy working themselves into a lather describing immigrants generically as "cockroaches" of whom 50% as such should be deported (Adolf and Goebbels would have been proud of the subtlety of terminology and analysis utilised,just replace "immigrants" with "jews",they swallowed (being an open minded unprejudiced person no doubt) Theresa May's ignorant rabble rousing propaganda (echoing, surprise surprise, the open minded and unbiased approach of the Tory-supporting press) at face value.

The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim":

"Addressing party activists in Manchester, Mrs May attacked what she said were excessive uses of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to family life.
She said Article 8 had been used to prevent the removal of foreign national prisoners and illegal immigrants.

She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."

Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.
"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

For the senior judges to come out with something like that would not be an everyday thing and illustrates how so much c..p is spouted by so many about the Human Rights Act and who frequently have no experience of actually seeing it in general operation in the Courts on a regular basis.Rather,they retreat into the blind prejudice comfort zone of a few instances,accurate or otherwise( (ie any "system" can be and is abused by a few, including those they support) and ignore the many more positives.

Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.43pm Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.30pm We should make our own laws and enforce them in our own courts. Who would make sure our laws - which I am pretty sure we make anyway, isn't that what all those blokes and women we bemoan so much are doing when voting on new legislature that is put before them in the houses of parliament - do not breach human rights? Funny how we bemoan other countries for eroding human rights, but don't fuss when theirs are about to be taken away from them. The majority of our laws now emanate from the EU. If we made and administered our own laws we could determine what we regard as human rights. We are quite capable of doing that without the help of European judges, many of whom come from countries that were either fascist dictatorships or communist dictatorships within living memory. Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 8.54pm) mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Jul 15 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.43pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 7.30pm

We should make our own laws and enforce them in our own courts.

Who would make sure our laws - which I am pretty sure we make anyway, isn't that what all those blokes and women we bemoan so much are doing when voting on new legislature that is put before them in the houses of parliament - do not breach human rights?

Funny how we bemoan other countries for eroding human rights, but don't fuss when theirs are about to be taken away from them.

The majority of our laws now emanate from the EU. If we made and administered our own laws we could determine what we regard as human rights. We are quite capable of doing that without the help of European judges, many of whom come from countries that were either fascist dictatorships or communist dictatorships within living memory.

Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 8.54pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jul 15 8.57pm
Please provide the evidence for the proposition that the "majority of our laws" emanate from the EU.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jul 15 8.57pm

Please provide the evidence for the proposition that the "majority of our laws" emanate from the EU.

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 9.13pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.57pm Please provide the evidence for the proposition that the "majority of our laws" emanate from the EU. It's a well known fact. We seem to be in hoc to the ECHR and of course our politicians, whatever party they belong to, don't want to miss out on the EU gravy train.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 9.13pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Please provide the evidence for the proposition that the "majority of our laws" emanate from the EU.

It's a well known fact. We seem to be in hoc to the ECHR and of course our politicians, whatever party they belong to, don't want to miss out on the EU gravy train.

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 9.21pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.49pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm Quote The Human rights act is an absolute disaster. I'll tell you what rights immigrants shouldn't have the right to coming here and ripping the dam system off for a start. I don't pay my taxes to support some scum bag who hates our way of life but will willingly take our charity. The current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable. Half these cockroaches should be deported and not let back in. I don't expect any politician of any political persuasion to come up with anything common sense, especially those of left leaning views. As for what should be removed from the current human rights act? Well I wouldn't remove anything......I'd tear the whole dam thing up. It was because of the human rights act that we couldn't get rid of captain hook for the best part of ten years, that Choudary couldn't be deported because of his 'right to a family life'. What about the god dam right of the people of this country not to be blown up on their daily commute? Hell there was even some judge who refused to deport an immigrant, WHO WAS HERE ILLEGALY, because he had a cat, and therefore had 'a family life' in this country. My view will NOT change on it, it should be ripped up, end of. Do you even know what the human rights act contains? Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history? Unfortunately,the poster who raised the "cat case" appeared to be so busy working themselves into a lather describing immigrants generically as "cockroaches" of whom 50% as such should be deported (Adolf and Goebbels would have been proud of the subtlety of terminology and analysis utilised,just replace "immigrants" with "jews",they swallowed (being an open minded unprejudiced person no doubt) Theresa May's ignorant rabble rousing propaganda (echoing, surprise surprise, the open minded and unbiased approach of the Tory-supporting press) at face value. The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim": "Addressing party activists in Manchester, Mrs May attacked what she said were excessive uses of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to family life. She said Article 8 had been used to prevent the removal of foreign national prisoners and illegal immigrants. She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat." Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK. "That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision." For the senior judges to come out with something like that would not be an everyday thing and illustrates how so much c..p is spouted by so many about the Human Rights Act and who frequently have no experience of actually seeing it in general operation in the Courts on a regular basis.Rather,they retreat into the blind prejudice comfort zone of a few instances,accurate or otherwise( (ie any "system" can be and is abused by a few, including those they support) and ignore the many more positives. Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm) Right out of the left wing hand book on how to win an argument on immigration. Against immigration? 'You Nazi you!!! How dare you! Don't you know that you're to go to work 12 hours a day just to support the terminally selfish stupid and lazy! Let everyone in and let them sponge off the system!'. Never mind that we have enough home grown spongers and that our whole infastructure of this country is creaking under the weight of the immigration farse. There's no telling some people.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 9.21pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.49pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm

Do you even know what the human rights act contains?

The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim":

She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."

Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm)

Right out of the left wing hand book on how to win an argument on immigration. Against immigration? 'You Nazi you!!! How dare you! Don't you know that you're to go to work 12 hours a day just to support the terminally selfish stupid and lazy! Let everyone in and let them sponge off the system!'. Never mind that we have enough home grown spongers and that our whole infastructure of this country is creaking under the weight of the immigration farse. There's no telling some people.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Jul 15 9.24pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.57pm Please provide the evidence for the proposition that the "majority of our laws" emanate from the EU. [Link] Of course the aim of the EU 'project' is to have all significant laws emanating from Europe, our Parliament would be reduced to a Parish Council. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Jul 15 9.24pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.57pm

Please provide the evidence for the proposition that the "majority of our laws" emanate from the EU.

[Link]

Of course the aim of the EU 'project' is to have all significant laws emanating from Europe, our Parliament would be reduced to a Parish Council.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jul 15 11.15pm
Right,so the salient quote from your link concerning laws "related in some way to Europe": "All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15 per cent and 50 per cent or thereabouts.” "A majority" as you stated means over 50% per cent,not somewhere between 15%-50%.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jul 15 11.15pm

Right,so the salient quote from your link concerning laws "related in some way to Europe":

"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15 per cent and 50 per cent or thereabouts.”

"A majority" as you stated means over 50% per cent,not somewhere between 15%-50%.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jul 15 11.20pm
Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 9.21pm Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.49pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm Quote The Human rights act is an absolute disaster. I'll tell you what rights immigrants shouldn't have the right to coming here and ripping the dam system off for a start. I don't pay my taxes to support some scum bag who hates our way of life but will willingly take our charity. The current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable. Half these cockroaches should be deported and not let back in. I don't expect any politician of any political persuasion to come up with anything common sense, especially those of left leaning views. As for what should be removed from the current human rights act? Well I wouldn't remove anything......I'd tear the whole dam thing up. It was because of the human rights act that we couldn't get rid of captain hook for the best part of ten years, that Choudary couldn't be deported because of his 'right to a family life'. What about the god dam right of the people of this country not to be blown up on their daily commute? Hell there was even some judge who refused to deport an immigrant, WHO WAS HERE ILLEGALY, because he had a cat, and therefore had 'a family life' in this country. My view will NOT change on it, it should be ripped up, end of. Do you even know what the human rights act contains? Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history? Unfortunately,the poster who raised the "cat case" appeared to be so busy working themselves into a lather describing immigrants generically as "cockroaches" of whom 50% as such should be deported (Adolf and Goebbels would have been proud of the subtlety of terminology and analysis utilised,just replace "immigrants" with "jews",they swallowed (being an open minded unprejudiced person no doubt) Theresa May's ignorant rabble rousing propaganda (echoing, surprise surprise, the open minded and unbiased approach of the Tory-supporting press) at face value. The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim": "Addressing party activists in Manchester, Mrs May attacked what she said were excessive uses of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to family life. She said Article 8 had been used to prevent the removal of foreign national prisoners and illegal immigrants. She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat." Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK. "That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision." For the senior judges to come out with something like that would not be an everyday thing and illustrates how so much c..p is spouted by so many about the Human Rights Act and who frequently have no experience of actually seeing it in general operation in the Courts on a regular basis.Rather,they retreat into the blind prejudice comfort zone of a few instances,accurate or otherwise( (ie any "system" can be and is abused by a few, including those they support) and ignore the many more positives. Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm) Right out of the left wing hand book on how to win an argument on immigration. Against immigration? 'You Nazi you!!! How dare you! Don't you know that you're to go to work 12 hours a day just to support the terminally selfish stupid and lazy! Let everyone in and let them sponge off the system!'. Never mind that we have enough home grown spongers and that our whole infastructure of this country is creaking under the weight of the immigration farse. There's no telling some people. Stunning, and I agree there certainly is no telling some people.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jul 15 11.20pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 9.21pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 8.49pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 7.54pm

Quote fed up eagle at 22 Jul 2015 7.47pm

Do you even know what the human rights act contains?

The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim":

She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."

Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm)

Stunning, and I agree there certainly is no telling some people.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 23 Jul 15 7.28am
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 11.15pm Right,so the salient quote from your link concerning laws "related in some way to Europe": "All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15 per cent and 50 per cent or thereabouts.” "A majority" as you stated means over 50% per cent,not somewhere between 15%-50%. Do you agree that the aim of the undemocratic shambles (sorry, meant noble EU project)is to create a United States of Europe where all major laws are determined by unelected commissioners. Along with the disastrous Euro ruining the economies and defence forces that would never be used as the disparate interests in the shambles would never be able to agree on appropriate action. Oh and of course the mass migration of people from the poorer countries to the richer - although that would eventually even out when all the member states become as poor as each other. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 23 Jul 15 7.28am

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jul 2015 11.15pm

Right,so the salient quote from your link concerning laws "related in some way to Europe":

"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15 per cent and 50 per cent or thereabouts.”

"A majority" as you stated means over 50% per cent,not somewhere between 15%-50%.

Do you agree that the aim of the undemocratic shambles (sorry, meant noble EU project)is to create a United States of Europe where all major laws are determined by unelected commissioners. Along with the disastrous Euro ruining the economies and defence forces that would never be used as the disparate interests in the shambles would never be able to agree on appropriate action. Oh and of course the mass migration of people from the poorer countries to the richer - although that would eventually even out when all the member states become as poor as each other.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Jul 15 8.54am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 4.38pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 4.15pm Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.59pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.50pm Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c*. Speaks volumes I'm afraid. I don't think you should call anyone a ct. Whether you use the word black as well, or fat, or bald etc, I don't think it matters much - certainly does not warrant a criminal prosecution. By the way, have there been any prosecutions of black people for calling white people 'white c**s? Your selective outrage at the use of the word black of course speaks volumes too. I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms. You brought up the Terry issue in a thread about Tory policies. Why are you doing this? Either agree with it or not. You brought the word black into the conversation, waited for someone to counter your argument that it's OK for a high profile footballer to use racist language to accuse them of selective outrage. Poor trolling. Must try harder. My contributions were in answer to your own posting of a link about 'thought crimes', contrasting the left's support of the right of Islamic State supporters to have freedom of speech, but the likes of Terry not to. Terry was found not guilty of using racist language by a proper court. The politically correct FA punished him for political reasons. Is it a 'societal norm' to allow Islamic State supporters to spread their poison unhindered? Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 4.00pm) I just said that there is a difference between saying something as a personal opinion, and acting on an expressed view. If you don't think there is a difference between someone saying 'I don't like black people' and telling someone directly, to their face, to 'go back home' or calling them a black ct then you're right. If however, you do see a difference between an idea or belief, and 'attacking' people on the basis of that idea of belief, verbally or physically then I'm right. I don't have a problem with people who express unpopular, horrible or even criminal views. Its when they act on them. Also, as the so called 'Thought Police' aren't actually murdering people for what they believe in private, its a hyperbole. I don't see how telling someone to go home is attacking them. I've had pub landlords tell me to go home; they weren't arrested and handcuffed - mind you I think they were under 85 years of age. The difference would be that there was just cause and it wasn't directed at you as an insult. If you really can't see the difference between the two examples, then that's fine, but your line in rhetoric is pretty poor. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 23 Jul 15 8.54am

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 4.38pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 4.15pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.59pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.50pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 3.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 3.24pm

Legged. I take it that you think it's OK for people to call others a black c***.

Speaks volumes I'm afraid.

I don't think you should call anyone a c**t. Whether you use the word black as well, or fat, or bald etc, I don't think it matters much - certainly does not warrant a criminal prosecution. By the way, have there been any prosecutions of black people for calling white people 'white c****s? Your selective outrage at the use of the word black of course speaks volumes too.

I'm not taking a stance. Just presenting what are Societal norms.

You brought up the Terry issue in a thread about Tory policies. Why are you doing this? Either agree with it or not.
You brought the word black into the conversation, waited for someone to counter your argument that it's OK for a high profile footballer to use racist language to accuse them of selective outrage.

Poor trolling. Must try harder.

My contributions were in answer to your own posting of a link about 'thought crimes', contrasting the left's support of the right of Islamic State supporters to have freedom of speech, but the likes of Terry not to. Terry was found not guilty of using racist language by a proper court. The politically correct FA punished him for political reasons. Is it a 'societal norm' to allow Islamic State supporters to spread their poison unhindered?

Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 4.00pm)

I just said that there is a difference between saying something as a personal opinion, and acting on an expressed view. If you don't think there is a difference between someone saying 'I don't like black people' and telling someone directly, to their face, to 'go back home' or calling them a black c**t then you're right.

If however, you do see a difference between an idea or belief, and 'attacking' people on the basis of that idea of belief, verbally or physically then I'm right.

I don't have a problem with people who express unpopular, horrible or even criminal views. Its when they act on them.

Also, as the so called 'Thought Police' aren't actually murdering people for what they believe in private, its a hyperbole.

I don't see how telling someone to go home is attacking them. I've had pub landlords tell me to go home; they weren't arrested and handcuffed - mind you I think they were under 85 years of age.

The difference would be that there was just cause and it wasn't directed at you as an insult. If you really can't see the difference between the two examples, then that's fine, but your line in rhetoric is pretty poor.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 18 of 28 < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Look what you've done!

Site Map

Sponsors