Gay Nazi Thugs attack ex-UKIP councillor

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

The home of UKIP councillor David Silvester, who blamed recent floods on gay marriage, has been targeted by protesters.

Mr Silvester did not wish to comment but Henley Town Council said eggs had been thrown at his house this week.

Insp Mark Harling told the Henley Standard police were investigating and condemned the act as "pointless".

An online petition demanding Mr Silvester's resignation has attracted more than 24,000 signatures.

As well as being hit by eggs, the town council said a "rainbow banner" had also been attached to the wall of Mr Silvester's house.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25977349

These Gay Nazi's should not be tolerated

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:08 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

How was this man pushing anyone around?

He was spreading his prejudice, which is pushing people around.

No he is vocalizing his prejudice.

If he was going around posting leaflets encouraging people to share his prejudice that would be spreading it.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:09 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Nothing warrants criminal attack.

Not even oppression of human rights? Are you more upset about a house getting egged than you are about an attempt to deny a group of people their civil rights?

How is coming out with crap attempting to deny anyone their civil rights?

Does this man have the right to free speech to make himself look like a complete jerk or not?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:10 pm

No Phil, YOU are the one "pushing people around" by implying that criminal acts are ok against anyone who dares voice an opinion against you. This basically make you a terrorist, you do realise that.

YOUR form of argument serves ONLY to reinforce the prejudices against you.

He did nothing in that speech that could be classed as "hate speech". and infact did himeslf all the harm needed because he made himself look a right tit, and of course got himself sacked...

your rabid "call to arms" serves only to lend credibility to his stand point (not his stupid speech but his stand point).

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:11 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Nothing warrants criminal attack.

It was a few eggs ffs! Had they been throwing rocks etc, then that would have been a criminal act, and i wouldn't condone that.

Worst things happen on trick or treat nights, i'm sure.

Throwing eggs is a criminal act

People get arrested if caught doing so on Halloween.

Or turn it around

It was only a few words ffs - had he gone out calling for gays to be beaten up it would have been a criminal act.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:11 pm

I mean, if they caught the egg-throwers I will admit they should be ticketed or something, but for fuck's sake -- the difference between egging a house and campaigning against human rights? The gay community has been harmed far more by UKIP than having to scrub their houses. I mean, how twisted do you have to be not to recognize that fact?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:12 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Nothing warrants criminal attack.

It was a few eggs ffs! Had they been throwing rocks etc, then that would have been a criminal act, and i wouldn't condone that.

Worst things happen on trick or treat nights, i'm sure.

Throwing eggs is a criminal egg

People get arrested if caught doing so on Halloween.

Or turn it around

It was only a few words ffs - had he gone out calling for gays to be beaten up it would have been a criminal act.

A criminal egg, eh? :D

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I mean, if they caught the egg-throwers I will admit they should be ticketed or something, but for fuck's sake -- the difference between egging a house and campaigning against human rights? The gay community has been harmed far more by UKIP than having to scrub their houses. I mean, how twisted do you have to be not to recognize that fact?

How has the gay community been harmed by UKIP?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:15 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I mean, if they caught the egg-throwers I will admit they should be ticketed or something, but for fuck's sake -- the difference between egging a house and campaigning against human rights? The gay community has been harmed far more by UKIP than having to scrub their houses. I mean, how twisted do you have to be not to recognize that fact?

How has the gay community been harmed by UKIP?

UKIP wants to deny them their human rights, it's right on their website.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:16 pm

grumpy old git wrote:No Phil, YOU are the one "pushing people around" by implying that criminal acts are ok against anyone who dares voice an opinion against you. This basically make you a terrorist, you do realise that.

YOUR form of argument serves ONLY to reinforce the prejudices against you.

He did nothing in that speech that could be classed as "hate speech". and infact did himeslf all the harm needed because he made himself look a right tit, and of course got himself sacked...

your rabid "call to arms" serves only to lend credibility to his stand point (not his stupid speech but his stand point).

TBF....I don't think that a few eggs being thrown at a bigots house is going to change peoples opinions of gay people, if prejudice exists, then it has always existed.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:17 pm

....And we don't know the sexuality of these protesters anyway.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:17 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

How has the gay community been harmed by UKIP?

UKIP wants to deny them their human rights, it's right on their website.

Well I can see Gay Pride parades being EGGED in Future , all in the name of EQUALITY and Straight Pride human rights.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:18 pm

Catman wrote:....And we don't know the sexuality of these protesters anyway.

Obviously GAY NAZI's

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:19 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

How has the gay community been harmed by UKIP?

UKIP wants to deny them their human rights, it's right on their website.

Where and what?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:20 pm

so what you are saying ben, is that some folks human rights are more important than others, that actually You DONT believe in free speech for all, merely "some"

Ah the liberalist again....

Listen I would happily challenge any of the R/W here and especially that certain "born again" who is a long time and detested dislike of mine...to show how "gay rights" have caused them personally any problems..because i know they cant, their arguments are all smoke and mirrors and have nil support in the community at large (except perhaps for their drinking buddies of equally fossilised intellect)

but condoning the "egging" is quite literally "egging the militants on" to worse things, unless it is dealt with for what it is. Petty criminality. petty yes criminality definitely

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:20 pm

Catman wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:No Phil, YOU are the one "pushing people around" by implying that criminal acts are ok against anyone who dares voice an opinion against you. This basically make you a terrorist, you do realise that.

YOUR form of argument serves ONLY to reinforce the prejudices against you.

He did nothing in that speech that could be classed as "hate speech". and infact did himeslf all the harm needed because he made himself look a right tit, and of course got himself sacked...

your rabid "call to arms" serves only to lend credibility to his stand point (not his stupid speech but his stand point).

TBF....I don't think that a few eggs being thrown at a bigots house is going to change peoples opinions of gay people, if prejudice exists, then it has always existed.

Yet you seem to think a few idiot words from an idiot will change peoples opinions of gays and are so worried about that happening you think it is OK to egg the house.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:21 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I mean, if they caught the egg-throwers I will admit they should be ticketed or something, but for fuck's sake -- the difference between egging a house and campaigning against human rights? The gay community has been harmed far more by UKIP than having to scrub their houses. I mean, how twisted do you have to be not to recognize that fact?

How has the gay community been harmed by UKIP?

UKIP members/councilors are constantly attacking gay people, the fact that the leadership won't admit to their bigotry as well is quite cowardly imo.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:23 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

How has the gay community been harmed by UKIP?

UKIP members/councilors are constantly attacking gay people, the fact that the leadership won't admit to their bigotry as well is quite cowardly imo.

Evidence please.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

TBF....I don't think that a few eggs being thrown at a bigots house is going to change peoples opinions of gay people, if prejudice exists, then it has always existed.

Yet you seem to think a few idiot words from an idiot will change peoples opinions of gays and are so worried about that happening you think it is OK to egg the house.

An eye for an eye....etc...

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:24 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

How has the gay community been harmed by UKIP?

UKIP members/councilors are constantly attacking gay people, the fact that the leadership won't admit to their bigotry as well is quite cowardly imo.

WITH EGGS ?

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:25 pm

AN EGG FOR AN EGG

lol!

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:26 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

UKIP members/councilors are constantly attacking gay people, the fact that the leadership won't admit to their bigotry as well is quite cowardly imo.

Evidence please.

There's plenty in the politics section, perhaps you haven't been studying the news much recently, where these far right bigots are being constantly exposed for what they are, and for ages now.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:28 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yet you seem to think a few idiot words from an idiot will change peoples opinions of gays and are so worried about that happening you think it is OK to egg the house.

An eye for an eye....etc...

So if a gay person insults a UKIP person with words it is acceptable for the UKIP person to throw eggs back at them?

An eye for an eye means giving back the same as is given to you - so if insulted with words you insult back with words not up the ante by throwing eggs.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:29 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Evidence please.

There's plenty in the politics section, perhaps you haven't been studying the news much recently, where these far right bigots are being constantly exposed for what they are, and for ages now.

Oh I have seen lots of stuff about people saying stuff and insulting gays- people who may or may not be UKIP members - but I have seen nothing about them attacking gays.

So your evidence that UKIP harm gays.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:30 pm

Perhaps it should be A DART FOR A DART lol!

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:31 pm

Perhaps it should be A DART FOR A DART lol!

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:44 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

There's plenty in the politics section, perhaps you haven't been studying the news much recently, where these far right bigots are being constantly exposed for what they are, and for ages now.

Oh I have seen lots of stuff about people saying stuff and insulting gays- people who may or may not be UKIP members - but I have seen nothing about them attacking gays.

So your evidence that UKIP harm gays.

It's their rhetoric.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:48 pm

GAY NAZI THUGS OFF OUR STREETS.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:11 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Oh I have seen lots of stuff about people saying stuff and insulting gays- people who may or may not be UKIP members - but I have seen nothing about them attacking gays.

So your evidence that UKIP harm gays.

It's their rhetoric.

First - where is your evidence it is UKIP rhetoric

Second rhetoric is not attacking.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:20 pm

grumpy old git wrote:so what you are saying ben, is that some folks human rights are more important than others, that actually You DONT believe in free speech for all, merely "some"

Ah the liberalist again....

Listen I would happily challenge any of the R/W here and especially that certain "born again" who is a long time and detested dislike of mine...to show how "gay rights" have caused them personally any problems..because i know they cant, their arguments are all smoke and mirrors and have nil support in the community at large (except perhaps for their drinking buddies of equally fossilised intellect)

but condoning the "egging" is quite literally "egging the militants on" to worse things, unless it is dealt with for what it is. Petty criminality. petty yes criminality definitely

Nope! UKIP wants to deny people their human rights. They aren't just living out their lives in peace, they're trying to oppress. You don't get to use your rights to take anybody else's away. In so doing you're not exercising your rights at all; you're being oppressive. Does my freedom to swing my fist not end at the tip of your nose?

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:23 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:so what you are saying ben, is that some folks human rights are more important than others, that actually You DONT believe in free speech for all, merely "some"

Ah the liberalist again....

Listen I would happily challenge any of the R/W here and especially that certain "born again" who is a long time and detested dislike of mine...to show how "gay rights" have caused them personally any problems..because i know they cant, their arguments are all smoke and mirrors and have nil support in the community at large (except perhaps for their drinking buddies of equally fossilised intellect)

but condoning the "egging" is quite literally "egging the militants on" to worse things, unless it is dealt with for what it is. Petty criminality. petty yes criminality definitely

Nope! UKIP wants to deny people their human rights. They aren't just living out their lives in peace, they're trying to oppress. You don't get to use your rights to take anybody else's away. In so doing you're not exercising your rights at all; you're being oppressive. Does my freedom to swing my fist not end at the tip of your nose?

Can you post the FACTS where UKIP want to deny people their human rights.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:25 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

It's their rhetoric.

First - where is your evidence it is UKIP rhetoric

Second rhetoric is not attacking.

Words/rhetoric that so many UKIP members/councilors use to attack gay people, can be just as bad as a physical attack, because they would promote such an event.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:25 pm

It's right on their website. But if you must be led by the nose:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UKIP+position+on+gay+marriage

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:33 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:so what you are saying ben, is that some folks human rights are more important than others, that actually You DONT believe in free speech for all, merely "some"

Ah the liberalist again....

Listen I would happily challenge any of the R/W here and especially that certain "born again" who is a long time and detested dislike of mine...to show how "gay rights" have caused them personally any problems..because i know they cant, their arguments are all smoke and mirrors and have nil support in the community at large (except perhaps for their drinking buddies of equally fossilised intellect)

but condoning the "egging" is quite literally "egging the militants on" to worse things, unless it is dealt with for what it is. Petty criminality. petty yes criminality definitely

Nope! UKIP wants to deny people their human rights. They aren't just living out their lives in peace, they're trying to oppress. You don't get to use your rights to take anybody else's away. In so doing you're not exercising your rights at all; you're being oppressive. Does my freedom to swing my fist not end at the tip of your nose?

Whose rights are being oppressed? Whose rights are being taken away? Where is your evidence?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:34 pm

Like I just told Alla, it's right on their website. They're actively seeking to be granted the power to deny marriages.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:34 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's right on their website. But if you must be led by the nose:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UKIP+position+on+gay+marriage

That is not their website.

So come on where is your evidence.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:35 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Like I just told Alla, it's right on their website. They're actively seeking to be granted the power to deny marriages.

So give me the link to the actual bit on the website.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:36 pm

UKIP is opposed to the Government's proposals to legislate to extend the definition of Marriage to include same-sex couples.

http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/same-sex-marriage

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:39 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
UKIP is opposed to the Government's proposals to legislate to extend the definition of Marriage to include same-sex couples.

http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/same-sex-marriage

Same you have not read it carefully.

But I am happy you have agreed Gays should be Egged EQUALLY.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:42 pm

I read the whole page; how about instead of being a coward and saying that I missed something, you actually say what it is that I'm supposed to have missed, so I can prove you wrong once again?

lol!

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:43 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
UKIP is opposed to the Government's proposals to legislate to extend the definition of Marriage to include same-sex couples.

http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/same-sex-marriage

Right now read it and explain the reasons behind it.

Then tell me that the rights of gays should supersede the rights of the religious.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:43 pm

question ...do we or do we not have the rule of law?

did that ukip cabbage break any laws?
did the equally green looking gay supporters mob break any laws?

no if or buts.
no ah buts

did they or didnt they....

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:43 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I read the whole page; how about instead of being a coward and saying that I missed something, you actually say what it is that I'm supposed to have missed, so I can prove you wrong once again?

The protection of the rights of religious believers.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:43 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Like I just told Alla, it's right on their website. They're actively seeking to be granted the power to deny marriages.

So give me the link to the actual bit on the website.

You mean you spout all this stuff about UKIP and don't know what is on their site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:44 pm

What possible reason can justify denying consenting adults the right to marry?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:44 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I read the whole page; how about instead of being a coward and saying that I missed something, you actually say what it is that I'm supposed to have missed, so I can prove you wrong once again?

The protection of the rights of religious believers.

How are the rights of religious people harmed in any way by gay marriage?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:45 pm

grumpy old git wrote:question ...do we or do we not have the rule of law?

did that ukip cabbage break any laws?
did the equally green looking gay supporters mob break any laws?

no if or buts.
no ah buts

did they or didnt they....

The ex tory who defected to UKIP did not break any laws.
The gay supporting mob did break laws.

Unfortunately I do not think we do have rule of law. The lady of justice is no longer blindfolded.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:45 pm

Anyone's rights should supersede the rights of religion, believing that there is a man in the sky doesn't come above what people's needs on earth are.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:46 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I read the whole page; how about instead of being a coward and saying that I missed something, you actually say what it is that I'm supposed to have missed, so I can prove you wrong once again?

Well personally I do have a problem with Gay Marriage being in line with that of a man and woman, but if ever those rights exceed that of a normal marriage then I think people will react to that and rightly so.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:47 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So give me the link to the actual bit on the website.

You mean you spout all this stuff about UKIP and don't know what is on their site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know exactly what is on their website - I am also fairly conversant with the dozens of sites that claim to have what is on their website and do not.
When debating with people about it I prefer to make sure we are reading from the same page of the hymnbook.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:47 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:question ...do we or do we not have the rule of law?

did that ukip cabbage break any laws?
did the equally green looking gay supporters mob break any laws?

no if or buts.
no ah buts

did they or didnt they....

The ex tory who defected to UKIP did not break any laws.
The gay supporting mob did break laws.

Unfortunately I do not think we do have rule of law. The lady of justice is no longer blindfolded.

You don't actually think she ever was?

by Sponsored content