Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

First topic message reminder :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kOiaXN-egg

There should a law which allows police to arrest Muslim types wearing a face disguise and even rip it off if they refuse to remove it voluntary.

This vile piece of scum woman should be jailed for 10 years for the despicable lies against this police officer who without the aid of his car camera could have had his life ruined.

Why she is out on bail beats me.

Foreigners AGAIN using the race card.

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge will be breaking into song next. Soppy git.

So bitter, can you actually be happy for anyone?

I'm going to ignore him. I can't stomach his awful posts any longer.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge will be breaking into song next. Soppy git.

Well it's got to better than fighting!

He'll be picking arguments as well all over the place. Can't stand the horrible man.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm going to ignore him. I can't stomach his awful posts any longer.

You have too much resentment

You need to learn to close chapters in life, as you will always remain stagnated and unhappy.

I mean that seriously

Rags, just answer the post and not the poster.
That's what debate forums should be about, even though it's hard to stick to at times.

eddie wrote:Rags, just answer the post and not the poster.
That's what debate forums should be about, even though it's hard to stick to at times.

Like Didge does? He never ever answers any post without insulting the person he's replying to. You're welcome to the ghastly moron.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags, just answer the post and not the poster.
That's what debate forums should be about, even though it's hard to stick to at times.

Like Didge does? He never ever answers any post without insulting the person he's replying to. You're welcome to the ghastly moron.

Deflection again and never admitting your own faults

Yes i do wrong sometimes, but admit it, but there has been many posts today where I just asked you questions, the insults started with you, which is no bother, but do not act innocent

Back to my opening thread please.

Stormee wrote:Back to my opening thread please.

You tell them Stormee!

Stormee wrote:Back to my opening thread please.

Did nobody tell you its happy hour?

Dont be shy

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Depends on what you mean by 'on-topic'.  The discussion started out as Muslim-bashing, and it has simply widened to cover other religions as well.

Fair flow for a topic.

It was about a particular Muslim woman actually, one who made a false accusation against a police officer.

When doesn't a topic widen to include a load of Christian-bashing? I reckon it happens on a large percentage of threads, and it will be even worse now that Didge is at large again.

Unfortunately, you don't get to be policeman.  Read the title: all about Muslim-bashing.  Now I take a title to be the meaning of a thread.  Any reasonable person would take this thread to be about Muslim-bashing. Stormie wrote those words, and even she has to abide by them.

So, then, it's also fair game to compare other religions....compare your criticisms of one religion to criticism of another religion.  It's also reasonable to enlarge the topic to the kinds of wrongdoing that those religions are guilty of.

If you want to play cop, remove yourself from engaging in the subject and strictly call the rules.  Otherwise, when you criticize others for 'topic-creeping' you are just another participant trying to bend the rules in your favor.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was about a particular Muslim woman actually, one who made a false accusation against a police officer.

When doesn't a topic widen to include a load of Christian-bashing? I reckon it happens on a large percentage of threads, and it will be even worse now that Didge is at large again.

Unfortunately, you don't get to be policeman.  Read the title: all about Muslim-bashing.  Now I take a title to be the meaning of a thread.  Any reasonable person would take this thread to be about Muslim-bashing.

So, then, it's also fair game to compare other religions.  It's also reasonable to enlarge the topic to the kinds of wrongdoing that those religions are guilty of.

If you want to play cop, remove yourself from engaging in the subject and strictly call the rules.  Otherwise, when you criticize others for 'topic-creeping' you are just another censorer.

You misread the title then - it's referring to one Muslim. You want a fair game? Reply to the OP who started the thread rather than just start bleating on about Christians again.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately, you don't get to be policeman.  Read the title: all about Muslim-bashing.  Now I take a title to be the meaning of a thread.  Any reasonable person would take this thread to be about Muslim-bashing.

So, then, it's also fair game to compare other religions.  It's also reasonable to enlarge the topic to the kinds of wrongdoing that those religions are guilty of.

If you want to play cop, remove yourself from engaging in the subject and strictly call the rules.  Otherwise, when you criticize others for 'topic-creeping' you are just another censorer.

You misread the title then - it's referring to one Muslim. You want a fair game? Reply to the OP who started the thread rather than just start bleating on about Christians again.

It could refer to one...it could also refer, in the singular, to Muslimhood.

If it indeed refers to a single incident, and that incident has been recounted, move on. And so, we've moved on.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You misread the title then - it's referring to one Muslim. You want a fair game? Reply to the OP who started the thread rather than just start bleating on about Christians again.

It could refer to one...it could also refer, in the singular, to Muslimhood.

If it indeed refers to a single incident, and that incident has been recounted, move on.  And so, we've moved on.

If you read the OP, you'd see it was about a Muslim woman who played the race card and falsely accused a police officer.

Perhaps you should move on from your hatred of Christians.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It could refer to one...it could also refer, in the singular, to Muslimhood.

If it indeed refers to a single incident, and that incident has been recounted, move on.  And so, we've moved on.

If you read the OP, you'd see it was about a Muslim woman who played the race card and falsely accused a police officer.

Perhaps you should move on from your hatred of Christians.

Now you see? You engage in totally fabricated topics...hatred of christians, nonsense! And you criticize others for mere topic drift. For shame.

Stop playing the rules game and move on with the subject-matter. I'm interested in hearing someone who wants to discuss this matter.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you read the OP, you'd see it was about a Muslim woman who played the race card and falsely accused a police officer.

Perhaps you should move on from your hatred of Christians.

Now you see?  You engage in totally fabricated topics...hatred of christians, nonsense!  And you criticize others for mere topic drift.  For shame.

Stop playing the rules game and move on with the subject-matter.  I'm interested in hearing someone who wants to discuss this matter.

You move on with the subject matter. Perhaps you could discuss the penalties for accusing the police of something they haven't done, or perverting the course of justice. You see? There are plenty of ways you can move on without turning this into a stupid game of "well you criticised a Muslim, so I'm going to criticise Christians".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Now you see?  You engage in totally fabricated topics...hatred of christians, nonsense!  And you criticize others for mere topic drift.  For shame.

Stop playing the rules game and move on with the subject-matter.  I'm interested in hearing someone who wants to discuss this matter.

You move on with the subject matter. Perhaps you could discuss the penalties for accusing the police of something they haven't done, or perverting the course of justice. You see? There are plenty of ways you can move on without turning this into a stupid game of "well you criticised a Muslim, so I'm going to criticise Christians".

I've already commented on that.  In the US you wouldn't see such a travesty.  In the US we can criticize anyone in public employ, because that's freedom of speech.  They work for us, dammit, and they'd better do a damn good job or they'll hear about.  If they don't, we are going to speak up. Imagine if I had a boss who chewed my ass out for doing a poor job, and then I could put him in jail for doing so. Ridiculous.

It's political speech to talk about a public employee.  Its 'right to redress government' to file a complaint.  All of those things are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  In the US we live in an open society; y'all live in a potential police state...and you set up your commonwealth nations the same way.

Now that's twice I've explained that.  Move on.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You move on with the subject matter. Perhaps you could discuss the penalties for accusing the police of something they haven't done, or perverting the course of justice. You see? There are plenty of ways you can move on without turning this into a stupid game of "well you criticised a Muslim, so I'm going to criticise Christians".

I've already commented on that.  In the US you wouldn't see such a travesty.  In the US we can criticize anyone in public employ, because that's freedom of speech.  They work for us, dammit, and they'd better do a damn good job or they'll hear about.  If they don't, we are going to speak up.  Imagine if I had a boss who chewed my ass out for doing a poor job, and then I could put him in jail for doing so.  Ridiculous.

It's political speech to talk about a public employee.  Its 'right to redress government' to file a complaint.  All of those things are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  In the US we live in an open society; y'all live in a potential police state...and you set up your commonwealth nations the same way.

Now that's twice I've explained that.  Move on.

yeah sure quill...thats why your cops run around gunning down innocent citizens with sickening regularity....

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You move on with the subject matter. Perhaps you could discuss the penalties for accusing the police of something they haven't done, or perverting the course of justice. You see? There are plenty of ways you can move on without turning this into a stupid game of "well you criticised a Muslim, so I'm going to criticise Christians".

I've already commented on that.  In the US you wouldn't see such a travesty.  In the US we can criticize anyone in public employ, because that's freedom of speech.  They work for us, dammit, and they'd better do a damn good job or they'll hear about.  If they don't, we are going to speak up.  Imagine if I had a boss who chewed my ass out for doing a poor job, and then I could put him in jail for doing so.  Ridiculous.

It's political speech to talk about a public employee.  Its 'right to redress government' to file a complaint.  All of those things are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  In the US we live in an open society; y'all live in a potential police state...and you set up your commonwealth nations the same way.

Now that's twice I've explained that.  Move on.

yeah sure quill...thats why your cops run around gunning down innocent citizens with sickening regularity....

The typical idiot's cop-out (no pun intended) -- if the system doesn't work perfectly, it doesn't work at all.

Are people actually defending this woman? She could have wrecked the guy's career if it hadn't been filmed.

Raggamuffin wrote:Are people actually defending this woman? She could have wrecked the guy's career if it hadn't been filmed.

Do you see anybody defending the woman? How did you end up with such a high reputation score?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Are people actually defending this woman? She could have wrecked the guy's career if it hadn't been filmed.

Do you see anybody defending the woman? How did you end up with such a high reputation score?

Quill does appear to be implying that the officer was at fault.

It's my natural debating skills which led to such a high reputation - obviously.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Are people actually defending this woman? She could have wrecked the guy's career if it hadn't been filmed.

Do you see anybody defending the woman? How did you end up with such a high reputation score?

Quill does appear to be implying that the officer was at fault.

It's my natural debating skills which led to such a high reputation - obviously.

He didn't say anything about this specific incident at all, other than to point out that it's already been dealt with. You're really comfortable with lying, you know that?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill does appear to be implying that the officer was at fault.

It's my natural debating skills which led to such a high reputation - obviously.

He didn't say anything about this specific incident at all, other than to point out that it's already been dealt with. You're really comfortable with lying, you know that?

I'm not lying - stop lying about me.

So what was Quill saying? It's difficult to understand him sometimes because he tends to waffle a bit.

He appears to be saying that the woman would have every right to accuse the officer in the US because of free speech. No?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

yeah sure quill...thats why your cops run around gunning down innocent citizens with sickening regularity....

The typical idiot's cop-out (no pun intended) -- if the system doesn't work perfectly, it doesn't work at all.

and you therfor think that a system that allows cops to run round carrying out what are, for all intents and purposes extra judicial executions, is symptomatic of a system that works? at all?

I'd say "your " system is NOT fit for purpose..its NOT that it doesnt work perfectly...the reality is that its busted....

Well said.

Raggamuffin wrote:So what was Quill saying? It's difficult to understand him sometimes because he tends to waffle a bit.

He appears to be saying that the woman would have every right to accuse the officer in the US because of free speech. No?

She's entitled to make charges in the US.  It's not a crime.  One of the many reasons why the US is preferable.

The British system is a closed society, amenable to police state tactics.  I consider any law that doesn't allow her to make the accusation is a police-state tactic.  If the British police need protection from free and open speech, you know they are hiding something, somewhere.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So what was Quill saying? It's difficult to understand him sometimes because he tends to waffle a bit.

He appears to be saying that the woman would have every right to accuse the officer in the US because of free speech. No?

She's entitled to make charges in the US.  It's not a crime.  One of the many reasons why the US is preferable.

The British system is a closed society, amenable to police state tactics.  I consider any law that doesn't allow her to make the accusation is a police-state tactic.  If the British police need protection from free and open speech, you know they are hiding something, somewhere.

It didn't happen in the UK.

It could be considered to be perverting the course of justice if it did though.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill does appear to be implying that the officer was at fault.

It's my natural debating skills which led to such a high reputation - obviously.

He didn't say anything about this specific incident at all, other than to point out that it's already been dealt with. You're really comfortable with lying, you know that?

Unfortunately, Ben, they are not comfortable with the idea that laws are intended to be applicable to many situations.  I think that Americans, being taught the concept of constitutionalism, are better schooled in understanding rules in the abstract.

Look at this very discussion: they can't remove themselves from the specific fact pattern.  Americans are schooled in First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment principles every day, not only in school, but in the newspapers.  It's difficult to see the advantage, until you meet someone from the outside.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She's entitled to make charges in the US.  It's not a crime.  One of the many reasons why the US is preferable.

The British system is a closed society, amenable to police state tactics.  I consider any law that doesn't allow her to make the accusation is a police-state tactic.  If the British police need protection from free and open speech, you know they are hiding something, somewhere.

It didn't happen in the UK.

It could be considered to be perverting the course of justice if it did though.

I thought we were beyond that.  I spoke of the British system.  The British set up Australia in 1901.

The course of justice in the US includes inviolable freedom of speech.  That's the difference.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So what was Quill saying? It's difficult to understand him sometimes because he tends to waffle a bit.

He appears to be saying that the woman would have every right to accuse the officer in the US because of free speech. No?

She's entitled to make charges in the US.  It's not a crime.  One of the many reasons why the US is preferable.

The British system is a closed society, amenable to police state tactics.  I consider any law that doesn't allow her to make the accusation is a police-state tactic.  If the British police need protection from free and open speech, you know they are hiding something, somewhere.

you are philosophically incorrect quill....even logically incorrect....

you ARE allowed to make charges...IF those chrges are true

you are NOT (in any sane world) allowed to [edit] KNOWINGLY make false and malicious charges under any circumstances...I can see NO situation under which the laying of false charges could be considered reasonable or accpetable...

primarily what freedoms does having such a right protect?

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She's entitled to make charges in the US.  It's not a crime.  One of the many reasons why the US is preferable.

The British system is a closed society, amenable to police state tactics.  I consider any law that doesn't allow her to make the accusation is a police-state tactic.  If the British police need protection from free and open speech, you know they are hiding something, somewhere.

you are philosophically incorrect quill....even logically incorrect....

you ARE allowed to make charges...IF those chrges are true

you are NOT (in any sane world) allowed to [edit]  KNOWINGLY make false and malicious charges under any circumstances...I can see NO situation under which the laying of false charges could be considered reasonable or accpetable...

primarily what freedoms does having such a right protect?

Yes..."if those charges are true."  Fat little trap that one is.  Charges in the US include a civil trial over the truth and, most importantly, they do not include the chill of criminal charges if you speak up and are wrong.  That's a police state tactic.

The deeper you dig, the more you learn about your own system.

I refer you to the question I asked at the end of my post

So someone in the US can accuse someone of all sorts out of malice and spite, and nobody bats an eyelid?

I begin to see perhaps WHY your cops are so trigger happy...dead folks cant lie.......

THAT by the way doesnt imply I agree with them being trigger happy, but that i can see why they may think like that.....

just to avoid any confusion you may have

Remember the woman who accused the security chap at Primark of snatching her baby off her? She was lying, and that was proved by CCTV. She was prosecuted, and I think that was good. She could have ruined the man's reputation, got him suspended from work, or even sacked.

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
the video is old and we Dealt with it
now the law explicitly say authorities have the right to ask anyone to remove face covering for identification...


I know it might seem like a foreign idea to some but you 'dealing with things' is always an option

Bumping this
as
this is a almost year 5 old story that is long since dealt with

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/judge-could-not-be-sure-who-was-behind-the-veil/story-e6freuy9-1226078801032

• The Daily Telegraph
  
• June 21, 2011 12:00AM
  

Talk about some peoples living in the past

veya_victaous wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
the video is old and we Dealt with it
now the law explicitly say authorities have the right to ask anyone to remove face covering for identification...


I know it might seem like a foreign idea to some but you 'dealing with things' is always an option

Bumping this
as
this is a almost year 2 old story that is long since dealt with

Talk about some peoples living in the past

We are now discussing the principle behind the story.

I think the principles it raises are still relevant.....
and especially the deflating of quills pompous assertions about the so called "superiority" of "his" system

anyway who asked for your opinion you antipodean twit

ooohhh...I'm SUCH a bully

I'm probably drunk too

Raggamuffin wrote:So someone in the US can accuse someone of all sorts out of malice and spite, and nobody bats an eyelid?

Yep, the First Amendment is inviolable.  The Supreme Court has termed it most important of the Amendments, because free speech is so important to democratic rule.

Of course, there is always resort to civil courts for a defamation suit.  But use of criminal law to squelch free speech means someone has something to hide. It's tantamount to resorting to force when reason is called for.

Lord Foul wrote:I'm probably drunk too

Usually...that's true.

Lord Foul wrote:I think the principles it raises are still relevant.....
and especially the deflating of quills pompous assertions about the so called "superiority" of "his" system

anyway who asked for your opinion you antipodean twit

Brit chauvinism. What else is new?

Lord Foul wrote:I begin to see perhaps WHY your cops are so trigger happy...dead folks cant lie.......

They can't tell the truth, either.  Now you're getting it.

You ask why free speech is so inviolable in the US?  It is criminalizing politics.  Imagine if you could arrest and prosecute the opposition for defamation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So someone in the US can accuse someone of all sorts out of malice and spite, and nobody bats an eyelid?

Yep, the First Amendment is inviolable.  The Supreme Court has termed it most important of the Amendments, because free speech is so important to democratic rule.

Of course, there is always resort to civil courts for a defamation suit.  But use of criminal law to squelch free speech means someone has something to hide.  It's tantamount to resorting to force when reason is called for.

So you think that the security chap was hiding something when he was falsely accused of snatching a baby?

I think our law is better.

SO you are discussing the fact that about 3 years ago Australia DEALT with it and passed laws saying that "authorities are allowed to tell someone to remove facial coverings for identification purposes".

Seems not much to discus, some thing happened, there need to be something done to deal with the issue, that thing was done ....
 so what is the debate? what is the discussion?
everyone said yep that's a good idea lets go with that rule change.

Seems Internet racists like to rehash it every year like it Just happened... i wonder why? It is so rare that not another case in half a decade, Also cause SOLVED.

the most foreign idea to the British isle... solving issues   I know if you actually solved them you'd have nothing to whinge about.




And, Well yes Quill is wrong too, because hey no great liberty lost and better than getting police to identify the bullet ridden body   

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So someone in the US can accuse someone of all sorts out of malice and spite, and nobody bats an eyelid?

Yep, the First Amendment is inviolable.  The Supreme Court has termed it most important of the Amendments, because free speech is so important to democratic rule.

Of course, there is always resort to civil courts for a defamation suit.  But use of criminal law to squelch free speech means someone has something to hide.  It's tantamount to resorting to force when reason is called for.

except quill you fail to account for what could be termed "national psychology"

I dont know about over there but in most of europe there are two principles..

firstly "where there's smoke there's fire" ie some one is not accused without reason..so IF someone is accused there is an inbuild bias against that person within the community
secondly "shit sticks" i.e even if someone is declared innocent, the taint remains....

SO...making a false accusation is rightly considered vile and is treated accordingly....

if someone made a false accusation against a cop here and it had to go to trial, it is likely that his carrer would be over...even if proven innocent...certainly his advancement opportunities would be .....limited

Its like that poor bloke falsely accused of molesting his daughter ...BY his daughter

he was proven innocent...but the taint will NEVER be erased....even officially.... he will never EVER pass the CRB check now.....since an accusation has been made....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yep, the First Amendment is inviolable.  The Supreme Court has termed it most important of the Amendments, because free speech is so important to democratic rule.

Of course, there is always resort to civil courts for a defamation suit.  But use of criminal law to squelch free speech means someone has something to hide.  It's tantamount to resorting to force when reason is called for.

So you think that the security chap was hiding something when he was falsely accused of snatching a baby?

You're having a difficult time with abstract thinking, aren't you?  It has nothing to do with this situation.  In fact, it has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong.  It has to do with preserving a structural right in the political system.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think our law is better.

Ignorance always wins.    Just stay in your country and we'll be ok.