[ubermik]

@*Sian wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@waspish wrote:

@*Sian wrote:

I watched some of it… Nothing I didn’t already know… all our resourses are used helping others rather than our own.

We have a polish invasion where I live no longer can you talk your own tongue and be understood. Plap!

I notice that in one town in lincoln the population is one third immigrant workers mainly young men. sureley this is wrong its a recipe for disaster ?

Which is worse tho? An immigrant workforce made up of single people or one made up of married people with a tribe of kids and elderly relatives in tow?

IF, we need A person to fill a job thats all we need, ONE person, not an army of benefit sucking leeches and hangers on all requiring education and health care

ONE job – ONE person

Hardly rocket science

Well I have used the benifts system in the past… that is what it is there for but not for immigrants and assylum seekers who by the way are meant to go to the FIRST country of safty… not over border after border to get some free money :twisted:

But they ARE going to the first country of “safty” you silly moo :lol: :lol: :lol:

No other country in the world is anywhere near as “saft” with tax payers money as this one lol

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@Bad Manners wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@Bad Manners wrote:

It didnt happen in France, so why the comparison.

Jeez lol, mensa certainly wont be nicking any new members from this place will they haha :lol:

Erm, well, as much as I hate to have to restate the blatantly obvious the comparison MIGHT, just might be to do with the facts that it was a response to the post containing the line “Shame you havent caught up with modern day law isnt it” AND the fact that as france isnt as far as I’m aware stuck in some time warp their legal system IS “modern day law” meaning that the comment I pasted isnt in the slightest bit factual or an all encompassing indicative definition of “modern law”

Actually tho, it DID happen in Portugal, and IN portugal leaving kids under 14 unsupervised is a jailable offence

I wasnt actually posting the question towards your long winded waffle. It was directed at PB’s mention of French Law being guilty until proven innocent at the top of the page.

And so you finally realise the difference between a public message board and a private email chat at long last

You must be well chuffed :lol:

Of course everyone’s allowed to post in response to anything.

You clearly got confused as to who I was questioning though. I was just clarifying that it wasnt your waffle i was refering to.

Well it didnt need clarifying, I knew whos post you were responding to but totally fail to see why thats significant in any way shape or form

Who YOU were quizzing and who YOU want to respond is only relevant to YOU after all so to avoid the waffle you might want to consider a PM to PB PDQ OTQ instead :lol:

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

anyone who breaks into someone elses home deserves all they get in my opinion

Dvd’s, camcorders, cameras, cash, mobile phones, I-Pods, games consoles etc etc etc etc

:lol:

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@Bad Manners wrote:

It didnt happen in France, so why the comparison.

Jeez lol, mensa certainly wont be nicking any new members from this place will they haha :lol:

Erm, well, as much as I hate to have to restate the blatantly obvious the comparison MIGHT, just might be to do with the facts that it was a response to the post containing the line “Shame you havent caught up with modern day law isnt it” AND the fact that as france isnt as far as I’m aware stuck in some time warp their legal system IS “modern day law” meaning that the comment I pasted isnt in the slightest bit factual or an all encompassing indicative definition of “modern law”

Actually tho, it DID happen in Portugal, and IN portugal leaving kids under 14 unsupervised is a jailable offence

I wasnt actually posting the question towards your long winded waffle. It was directed at PB’s mention of French Law being guilty until proven innocent at the top of the page.

And so you finally realise the difference between a public message board and a private email chat at long last

You must be well chuffed :lol:

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

I’d put you in Jail for boring us all to death.

Well in that case I thank god that youre a totally irrelevant spec of triviality then and sulk over the fact it hasnt progressed past “attempted murder by boredom” :( :lol:

Guess I need to try harder :lol:

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

It didnt happen in France, so why the comparison.

Jeez lol, mensa certainly wont be nicking any new members from this place will they haha :lol:

Erm, well, as much as I hate to have to restate the blatantly obvious the comparison MIGHT, just might be to do with the facts that it was a response to the post containing the line “Shame you havent caught up with modern day law isnt it” AND the fact that as france isnt as far as I’m aware stuck in some time warp their legal system IS “modern day law” meaning that the comment I pasted isnt in the slightest bit factual or an all encompassing indicative definition of “modern law”

Actually tho, it DID happen in Portugal, and IN portugal leaving kids under 14 unsupervised is a jailable offence

[ubermik]

@fastcars wrote:

And likewise…. I challenge you to find any sign of hypocrisy on my part. Not living in the UK I dont get to see these daily news reports and I rarely click on the endless stream of links provided by Batty as she… like yourself…. only post information to back your theory of guilt on the part of the McCanns. The facts of the case are quite simple. A child has gone missing and nobody has got the faintest idea how. If the McCanns are found guilty then they should suffer the consiquences but at this moment in time there is no evidence whatsoever linking them to her dissapearance. My gut feeling says they are guilty of nothing more than leaving their kids alone unattended…… and i certainly dont buy into this witch hunt that yourself… Batty and PB have been on for the last months. Vigilantes were outlawed many years ago for a fair judicial system. Shame you havent caught up with modern day law isnt it.

Well to try once again to dumb things down to such a level that EVEN you can manage to understand them

I wasnt the one calling somoene a hypocrit without having a single post that could be used to substantiate that claim was I? You were. so explain why on earth I would need to substantiate an eroneous claim I havent made? Well?

Secondly, you mention theories. Well your suspicion of innocence is ONLY a theory isnt it, so the phrase “pot kettle” springs to mind

But, its also an example OF your hypocrisy, hypocrisy is the act of criticising something when someone else does it that you do yourself

Youre criticising people having an opinion, suspicion or theory on this re their guilt, your own view is the exact same thing, based on an equal absence of fact but is simply a different view

As youre not criticising EVERY view formed on nothing more than is being splayed in the media thats hypocrisy however you try to dress it up

But if you check back you’ll notice that although I do state quite clearly what my own thoughts are on this I dont criticise anyone else for having different ones even if I dont agree with them

You on the other hand do, you overtly criticise rather than merely disagreeing with people “daring” to form negative opinions when they dont have facts, when your forming postive opinions based on an equal lack of any facts to support that hypothesis

Thats hypocrisy, look it up if you dont believe me lol :lol:

While youre at it you could do with looking up the word vigilante as you also dont seem to have the faintest idea what that means, forming an opinion that doesnt worship or protect POSSIBLE child killers ISNT being a vigilante, but I am sure there are quite a few apt names for people who would proport that child murderers should be above suspicion or investigation

You should also read up on the legal system you croon on about, innocence till proven guilty DOESNT equate to being above suspicion or investigation. Infact its doing those exact same things TO “presumed innocent” people that ends in a conviction of the guilty much of the time

You really havent got the hang of constructing reasoned and balanced logical points really have ya? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ubermik]

@johnboy25 wrote:

I think a definition of the circumstances where you can use force would come in handy as well. Preferrably one that isn’t going to chop and change or be ‘up for review’ whenever somone gets seriously hurt.

I think it would be a good start if anyone being uninvitedly within your property gave cause for the use of force as I can think of quite a few people I could then invite over and deny having invited over during the inquest :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ubermik]

@johnboy25 wrote:

Probably not, for the simple reason that the law (Jack Straw’s law that most cops who would happily see a mugger/thief get what they deserve must enforce) still might protect the guilty. I heard about this on Sky News a while ago and it was as clear as mud – seemingly you have to wait for them to attack you before you can do anything. Under those circumstances, you can use reasonable force. That’s the impression I got.

So if someone tried to mug me, and I lashed out and told them to f**k off but they refused to back off, just how far can I go before it’s deemed that I’ve went beyond ‘reasonable force’ to defend myself? I wind up in court and the scumbag – most probably a drug addict and a career criminal – gets to play the victim.

I think we need a clearer definition of “reasonable force”, my personal favourite would be “when youre REASONABLY sure the amount of FORCE used has caused them to stop breathing”

Works for me :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ubermik]

I have a mate whos a copper and his suggestion even under the old laws was to buy a knife wearing gloves, keep it cleaned and wrapped in a plastic bag under the bed next to a baseball bat

If someone breaks in beat the living daylights out of them with the bat making sure theyre REALLY going to need some long term hospitalisation and then, again wearing the gloves, place the knife in their hand

A knife in the eyes of the law is seen as a far more dangerous weapon than a baseball bat, so using a baseball bat against an intruder wielding a knife is considered reasonable until they drop the knife, so if theyre found unconcious still holding the knife the defendant is never classed as being the one with the upper hand and most lethal intent so charges are highly unlikely as its acceptable levels of self defence because of the knife

Oh yeah, his other opinion on the scenario was that if rather than a good jolly walloping the householder decided to lift the scumbag slightly and then drop them onto the knife whilst still in the burglars hand claiming they fell on it when they went down that not only would it remove the claims they didnt have a knife, but would in most cases return a verdict of accidental death rather than even manslaughter due to the person who died having done so at the blade of a knife they themselves were using threateningly AND whilst in the perpetration of a criminal act with menaces

Dont ya just luv the piggies sometimes? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Author]

Posts