You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Look what you've done!
October 31 2026 2.13am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Look what you've done!


Page 10 of 17 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Jul 15 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.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Cucking Funt Flag Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 4.16pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

That I do agree with. The 'enemy' is clearly defined and it doesn't need all-encompassing draconian measures to combat it.

 

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Jul 15 4.19pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Not a chance that will ever be the outcome though. It'd never get past the house of lords, and the judiciary would simply refuse to convict cases as they'd be I) against UK legal prescident and II) Inviolation of the Human Rights act, which Cameron has already backtracked on withdrawing.

Until you see the definition of what constitutes 'extremism' its impossible to say what the intent of the powers will be, or even if they're needed anyhow (given the rather broad power of anti-terrorist legislation).


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Jul 15 4.23pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 22 Jul 2015 4.16pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

That I do agree with. The 'enemy' is clearly defined and it doesn't need all-encompassing draconian measures to combat it.

I quite like the idea suggested that people wishing to join IS or travel to territory occupied by IS be allowed to voluntarily surrender their passport/citizenship and freely leave the UK to do so.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 22 Jul 15 4.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But of course you are in favour of mighty sledgehammers when it comes to so called racially aggravated 'crimes' and hounding bakers who disapprove of same sex marriage and other 'nuts'.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 22 Jul 15 4.36pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 4.19pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Not a chance that will ever be the outcome though. It'd never get past the house of lords, and the judiciary would simply refuse to convict cases as they'd be I) against UK legal prescident and II) Inviolation of the Human Rights act, which Cameron has already backtracked on withdrawing.

Until you see the definition of what constitutes 'extremism' its impossible to say what the intent of the powers will be, or even if they're needed anyhow (given the rather broad power of anti-terrorist legislation).


Love it that you are relying on the unelected House of Lords to ensure that Islamic State remain free to advocate real racially, religiously and homophobic crimes.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 22 Jul 15 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.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 4.41pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 4.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But of course you are in favour of mighty sledgehammers when it comes to so called racially aggravated 'crimes' and hounding bakers who disapprove of same sex marriage and other 'nuts'.

You are obsessed by gay cake as well. Do you roll a dice to choose which deflecting argument you will use next.
Roll a 1. Defend 85 yr old who shouts racist comment. Roll a 2. Moan that it's not fair that calling someone a black c*** is castigated by society at large.
Roll a 3. Mention the phrase Socialist paradise
Roll 4: mention pol pot and or stalin.
Roll 5: mention gay cake gate.
Roll 6: Say lefties defend IS

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 4.42pm)

 
Superfly Flag The sun always shines in Catford 22 Jul 15 4.44pm

Mods - Why do we let a bloke who has been red carded 3 times already to turn every thread into his political agenda?

 

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]
Cucking Funt Flag Clapham on the Back 22 Jul 15 5.09pm

Quote Superfly at 22 Jul 2015 4.44pm

Mods - Why do we let a bloke who has been red carded 3 times already to turn every thread into his political agenda?


The Mods are busy initiating the new recruits in the time honoured fashion while HOL Towers is closed for its annual de-greasing.

 

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 22 Jul 15 5.15pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.41pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 4.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But of course you are in favour of mighty sledgehammers when it comes to so called racially aggravated 'crimes' and hounding bakers who disapprove of same sex marriage and other 'nuts'.

You are obsessed by gay cake as well. Do you roll a dice to choose which deflecting argument you will use next.
Roll a 1. Defend 85 yr old who shouts racist comment. Roll a 2. Moan that it's not fair that calling someone a black c*** is castigated by society at large.
Roll a 3. Mention the phrase Socialist paradise
Roll 4: mention pol pot and or stalin.
Roll 5: mention gay cake gate.
Roll 6: Say lefties defend IS

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 4.42pm)

Merely highlighting the double standards of people with your outlook Nick.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 5.27pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 5.15pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.41pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 4.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But of course you are in favour of mighty sledgehammers when it comes to so called racially aggravated 'crimes' and hounding bakers who disapprove of same sex marriage and other 'nuts'.

You are obsessed by gay cake as well. Do you roll a dice to choose which deflecting argument you will use next.
Roll a 1. Defend 85 yr old who shouts racist comment. Roll a 2. Moan that it's not fair that calling someone a black c*** is castigated by society at large.
Roll a 3. Mention the phrase Socialist paradise
Roll 4: mention pol pot and or stalin.
Roll 5: mention gay cake gate.
Roll 6: Say lefties defend IS

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 4.42pm)

Merely highlighting the double standards of people with your outlook Nick.


You are suggesting that I support IS?
Have I ever praised Pol Pot?
You don't think calling someone a black c*** is a bit out of order?

If one were to retort in your fashion they might imply that those with your outlook bemoan the fact that 'c**n' and 'w**' have disappeared from the vernacular.

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 22 Jul 15 6.26pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 5.27pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 5.15pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.41pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 4.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jul 2015 4.05pm

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)


No its not. But Camerons plans that he outlined go way beyond ISIS and include anyone who dares to criticise the government. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But of course you are in favour of mighty sledgehammers when it comes to so called racially aggravated 'crimes' and hounding bakers who disapprove of same sex marriage and other 'nuts'.

You are obsessed by gay cake as well. Do you roll a dice to choose which deflecting argument you will use next.
Roll a 1. Defend 85 yr old who shouts racist comment. Roll a 2. Moan that it's not fair that calling someone a black c*** is castigated by society at large.
Roll a 3. Mention the phrase Socialist paradise
Roll 4: mention pol pot and or stalin.
Roll 5: mention gay cake gate.
Roll 6: Say lefties defend IS

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 4.42pm)

Merely highlighting the double standards of people with your outlook Nick.


You are suggesting that I support IS?
Have I ever praised Pol Pot?
You don't think calling someone a black c*** is a bit out of order?

If one were to retort in your fashion they might imply that those with your outlook bemoan the fact that 'c**n' and 'w**' have disappeared from the vernacular.

You are not known for your criticism of IS. I'm sure you don't support IS. You, just like the rest of the left, bend over backwards to give Islamic extremism the benefit of the doubt with all sort of spurious reasons for their activities.
When did I mention Pol Pot?
Certainly calling someone a black c*** or any sort of c*** is out of order, it just does not warrant criminal proceedings.
I'm pleased that offensive words are out of vogue, I just think their use does not warrant criminal proceedings, whereas I think that the utterances of, say Anjan Choudhury, do.

Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Jul 2015 6.29pm)

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 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.

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 22 Jul 15 6.48pm

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.

We are more or less obliged to use these courts while we are shackled to the EU - another very good reason to vote to leave when the time comes.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 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.

 
fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 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.

 
fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Jul 15 7.02pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Jul 2015 6.48pm

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.

We are more or less obliged to use these courts while we are shackled to the EU - another very good reason to vote to leave when the time comes.


Absolutely.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jul 15 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)

 
Page 10 of 17 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Look what you've done!