Grenville Tower survivors

smelly-bandit wrote:

nicko wrote:Why should people "who want better lives" pimp off people who have worked and paid for the lives they have now?

I wonder if I asked didge to pay for my booze every weekend whether he'd agree

smelly-bandit wrote:Same time iPhones, plasma screens and rollies did.

So I take it you're not a fan of funding my lifestyle, but you want me to fund other people's lifestyle

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge is conflating again...


Illegal immigrants should be deported immediately when discovered...!!!


Foreign criminals should firstly not be allowed entry into the UK... and any foreign national criminal here should be removed...

I am surprised that Didge disagrees with this basic common sense approach that is about UK govt looking after the rights/freedoms of British citizens here in UK first as a priority, and ensuring their safety/security is paramount here in UK... although this is the first and foremost fundamental basic principle of what the British people want & expect from the UK govt, in exchange for all the hundreds of billions of Pounds in taxes they take off us each year...!


Since when did British people give any consent/agreement to govt to start letting foreign criminals into the country... or for govt to start letting foreign criminals and illegal immigrants stay in the country...!!!???


www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29251735

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Police-hunting-Latvian-killer-prime-suspect-murder-investigation-Alice-Gross-body-London.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Latvian-killer-Arnis-Zalkalns-charged-murder-schoolgirl-Alice-Gross-police-say.html

smelly-bandit wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge is conflating again...


Illegal immigrants should be deported immediately when discovered...!!!


Foreign criminals should firstly not be allowed entry into the UK... and any foreign national criminal here should be removed...

I am surprised that Didge disagrees with this basic common sense approach that is about UK govt looking after the rights/freedoms of British citizens here in UK first as a priority, and ensuring their safety/security is paramount here in UK... although this is the first and foremost fundamental basic principle of what the British people want & expect from the UK govt, in exchange for all the hundreds of billions of Pounds in taxes they take off us each year...!


Since when did British people give any consent/agreement to govt to start letting foreign criminals into the country... or for govt to start letting foreign criminals and illegal immigrants stay in the country...!!!???


www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29251735

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Police-hunting-Latvian-killer-prime-suspect-murder-investigation-Alice-Gross-body-London.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Latvian-killer-Arnis-Zalkalns-charged-murder-schoolgirl-Alice-Gross-police-say.html

Correct

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge is conflating again...


Illegal immigrants should be deported immediately when discovered...!!!


Foreign criminals should firstly not be allowed entry into the UK... and any foreign national criminal here should be removed...

I am surprised that Didge disagrees with this basic common sense approach that is about UK govt looking after the rights/freedoms of British citizens here in UK first as a priority, and ensuring their safety/security is paramount here in UK... although this is the first and foremost fundamental basic principle of what the British people want & expect from the UK govt, in exchange for all the hundreds of billions of Pounds in taxes they take off us each year...!


Since when did British people give any consent/agreement to govt to start letting foreign criminals into the country... or for govt to start letting foreign criminals and illegal immigrants stay in the country...!!!???


www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29251735

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Police-hunting-Latvian-killer-prime-suspect-murder-investigation-Alice-Gross-body-London.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Latvian-killer-Arnis-Zalkalns-charged-murder-schoolgirl-Alice-Gross-police-say.html

Lord Foul wrote:the question that needs be asked is

NOT if what they did was criminal in THEIR country, BUT ...is it criminal HERE...

hence aposty and homosexuality (not being criminal here) is not a bar, even if they were convicted "over there"

nice try at setting up a straw man didge...but you have been rumbled....again....

what we dont want are those convicted of rape/violent crime etc

Lord Foul wrote:well even thats easily dealt with (since you insist on moving the goal posts)

If the crime they commited "over there" could have in the opinion of a judge,  attracted a sentence of 5 years or more HERE, then dont let em in. (since thats a "serious crime")

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well even thats easily dealt with (since you insist on moving the goal posts)

If the crime they commited "over there" could have in the opinion of a judge,  attracted a sentence of 5 years or more HERE, then dont let em in. (since thats a "serious crime")

Wow even more idiocy.

So where something is overly harshly dealt with, makes you then consider this a serious crime.

For example in some countries drug trafficking carries a death sentence

So based on your standard here and the highest sentencing found on crimes around the world

You would deny people who have been stupid enough to drug traffic, correct?

Thus adding to their previous sentence

Do you see how easily i am pulling aprt your piss poor reasoning here?

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow even more idiocy.

So where something is overly harshly dealt with, makes you then consider this a serious crime.

For example in some countries drug trafficking carries a death sentence

So based on your standard here and the highest sentencing found on crimes around the world

You would deny people who have been stupid enough to drug traffic, correct?

Thus adding to their previous sentence

Do you see how easily i am pulling aprt your piss poor reasoning here?

what part of IF THE CRIME WOULD HAVE ATTRACTED 5YEARS OR MORE HERE do you not understand??

we do not HAVE the highest sentencing ound on crimes around the world...not in the least, in fact I bet we are as soft as shit.

and yes I WOULD deny drug traffikers, (unless there was reasonable doubt as to the safety of their conviction, which is why a judge/tribunal of judges should review all such cases) sometimes stupidity is actionable..

Didge wrote:You are avoiding my main point.

Do you think criminals should have an extra punishment due to them being foreign?

Second, do you think people convicted of Homosexuality and adultery and apostacy, should be denied the right to live here, even though they have been convicted of a crime in that country?

Yes or no?

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge would like to see convicted bank robbers being given jobs as bank security guards and given keys to the vault...


Because by his warped logic... it would be 'unfair' to 'deny' access to the vault to criminals who have already served their time for robbing banks... and that would be a 'double punishment'...!!!

Angry Andy wrote:Dont suppose SB was offence free in his native South Africa before he took the cowards way out and ran before the anti apartheid  lobby got hold of him for his racism and crimes against humanity.
Chuck him out of the country.
We dont need scum like him staining and infesting this great country.

Tommy Monk wrote:


What a complete idiot!!!

Lord Foul wrote:silly school boy name calling?

like I said...can you tell the difference?

besides....you could tell him he's being a berk.....

I make my calls on the percieved strength of the epithet....on the basis of "the reasonable man"

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge would like to see convicted bank robbers being given jobs as bank security guards and given keys to the vault...


Because by his warped logic... it would be 'unfair' to 'deny' access to the vault to criminals who have already served their time for robbing banks... and that would be a 'double punishment'...!!!

Where did I claim any of the above?

Do you know who makes up some of the best security advisers on theft etc Tommy?

Former criminals

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow even more idiocy.

So where something is overly harshly dealt with, makes you then consider this a serious crime.

For example in some countries drug trafficking carries a death sentence

So based on your standard here and the highest sentencing found on crimes around the world

You would deny people who have been stupid enough to drug traffic, correct?

Thus adding to their previous sentence

Do you see how easily i am pulling aprt your piss poor reasoning here?

what part of IF THE CRIME WOULD HAVE ATTRACTED 5YEARS OR MORE HERE do you not understand??

we do not HAVE the highest sentencing ound on crimes around the world...not in the least, in fact I bet we are as soft as shit.

and yes I WOULD deny drug traffikers, (unless there was reasonable doubt as to the safety of their conviction, which is why a judge/tribunal of judges should review all such cases) sometimes stupidity is actionable..

1) The part where you neglect that some countries have a harsher sentence for the same crimes. Thus exposing your stupidity here

sigh...Thats the point...... ONLY IF, in the opinion of a judge or tribunal, would the sentence for that crime if commited and prosecuted HERE be likely to result in 5 years or more........would I deny entry....I think YOU need specsavers

2) I never said we have the highest sentences, do you need to go to specsavers?

I said you basing this on crimes how they are sentenced around the world to deny people. You use 5 years as a standard of seriousness. When as seen people can be executed for drug related offenses.

3) So you admit to adding another sentence to the one they have already served. When we should decriminalize drugs altogether.

Thanks for admitting you are a savage.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) The part where you neglect that some countries have a harsher sentence for the same crimes. Thus exposing your stupidity here

sigh...Thats the point...... ONLY IF, in the opinion of a judge or tribunal, would the sentence for that crime if commited and prosecuted HERE be likely to result in 5 years or more........would I deny entry....I think YOU need specsavers  

2) I never said we have the highest sentences, do you need to go to specsavers?

I said you basing this on crimes how they are sentenced around the world to deny people. You use 5 years as a standard of seriousness. When as seen people can be executed for drug related offenses.

3) So you admit to adding another sentence to the one they have already served. When we should decriminalize drugs altogether.

Thanks for admitting you are a savage.

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:silly school boy name calling?

like I said...can you tell the difference?

besides....you could tell him he's being a berk.....

I make my calls on the percieved strength of the epithet....on the basis of "the reasonable man"

So subjectively based on some perceived view you hold on words.

Twat  and idiot is okay, but scum is a no no

Interesting

Talk about the thought Police on parade.

Personally I do not care what people call me, as they are just words

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) The part where you neglect that some countries have a harsher sentence for the same crimes. Thus exposing your stupidity here

sigh...Thats the point...... ONLY IF, in the opinion of a judge or tribunal, would the sentence for that crime if commited and prosecuted HERE be likely to result in 5 years or more........would I deny entry....I think YOU need specsavers  

2) I never said we have the highest sentences, do you need to go to specsavers?

I said you basing this on crimes how they are sentenced around the world to deny people. You use 5 years as a standard of seriousness. When as seen people can be executed for drug related offenses.

3) So you admit to adding another sentence to the one they have already served. When we should decriminalize drugs altogether.

Thanks for admitting you are a savage.

So you base this not on any sense but on a present sentencing which you want to add to that sentence.

Inequality at its worse

Like i said, you are a savage

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:


Where did I claim any of the above?

Do you know who makes up some of the best security advisers on theft etc Tommy?

Former criminals

Still waiting Tommy

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


So subjectively based on some perceived view you hold on words.

Twat  and idiot is okay, but scum is a no no

Interesting

Talk about the thought Police on parade.

Personally I do not care what people call me, as they are just words

well other people do...and I have to have cognizance of that.....
and, yes it is subjective on my view....

would I kick you in the nuts you for using a  term to my face...if yes then its a no no...if no then ok...
since there is no "international standard of acceptable insult"...its all I have to go on....like  I said...what would the entirely ficticious, but very useful "reasonable man" think.......

if you cant live with that relatively light hand on things...well

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


So subjectively based on some perceived view you hold on words.

Twat  and idiot is okay, but scum is a no no

Interesting

Talk about the thought Police on parade.

Personally I do not care what people call me, as they are just words

well other people do...and I have to have cognizance of that.....
and, yes it is subjective on my view....

would I kick you in the nuts you for using a  term to my face...if yes then its a no no...if no then ok...
since there is no "international standard of acceptable insult"...its all I have to go on....like  I said...what would the entirely ficticious, but very useful "reasonable man" think.......

if you cant live with that relatively light hand on things...well

I can live with anything.

What I laugh at is how people elevated to a position of moderation, thinking they know what is best more than others. Simple because they have been chosen by the owner. I was once offered to do this way back when I first joined and turned it down.

Do you know why I turned it down?

You do understand people have a right to object or be critical of moderators decisions and yet there is a rule that punishes people for this.

I mean if any Goverment did that, you would rightly be up in arms over this.

AHH....BUT....this isnt a "democracy", it has no pretence to being a govt, nor of extending any sort of citizens rights as such....
this is ...effectively Bens living room, into which you have been invited to politely debate issues of interest. and in this living rooom (as in all civilised places), we have standards, many of whic could be seen as purely subjective, especially to those who like to go beyond what would be considered almost universally as civil....You wouldnt argue with your "host" (or his deputies, in the form of say, family members) nor gratuitously insult his other guests, would you?


So I can live and laugh at how sometimes the moderation here is certainly not singing off the same hymn sheet.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


I can live with anything.

What I laugh at is how people elevated to a position of moderation, thinking they know what is best more than others. Simple because they have been chosen by the owner. I was once offered to do this way back when I first joined and turned it down.

Do you know why I turned it down?

You do understand people have a right to object or be critical of moderators decisions and yet there is a rule that punishes people for this.

I mean if any Goverment did that, you would rightly be up in arms over this.

AHH....BUT....this isnt a "democracy", it has no pretence to being a govt, nor of extending any sort of citizens rights as such....
this is ...effectively Bens living room, into which you have been invited to politely debate issues of interest. and in this living rooom (as in all civilised places), we have standards, many of whic could be seen as purely subjective, especially to those who like to go beyond what would be considered almost universally as civil....You wouldnt argue with your "host" (or his deputies, in the form of say, family members) nor gratuitously insult his other guests, would you?  


So I can live and laugh at how sometimes the moderation here is certainly not singing off the same hymn sheet.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


I can live with anything.

What I laugh at is how people elevated to a position of moderation, thinking they know what is best more than others. Simple because they have been chosen by the owner. I was once offered to do this way back when I first joined and turned it down.

Do you know why I turned it down?

You do understand people have a right to object or be critical of moderators decisions and yet there is a rule that punishes people for this.

I mean if any Goverment did that, you would rightly be up in arms over this.

AHH....BUT....this isnt a "democracy", it has no pretence to being a govt, nor of extending any sort of citizens rights as such....
this is ...effectively Bens living room, into which you have been invited to politely debate issues of interest. and in this living rooom (as in all civilised places), we have standards, many of whic could be seen as purely subjective, especially to those who like to go beyond what would be considered almost universally as civil....You wouldnt argue with your "host" (or his deputies, in the form of say, family members) nor gratuitously insult his other guests, would you?  


So I can live and laugh at how sometimes the moderation here is certainly not singing off the same hymn sheet.

Lord Foul wrote:and I have yet to see a worse justification for someone pleading to be allowed to "do as they will"

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


I can live with anything.

What I laugh at is how people elevated to a position of moderation, thinking they know what is best more than others. Simple because they have been chosen by the owner. I was once offered to do this way back when I first joined and turned it down.

Do you know why I turned it down?

You do understand people have a right to object or be critical of moderators decisions and yet there is a rule that punishes people for this.

I mean if any Goverment did that, you would rightly be up in arms over this.

AHH....BUT....this isnt a "democracy", it has no pretence to being a govt, nor of extending any sort of citizens rights as such....
this is ...effectively Bens living room, into which you have been invited to politely debate issues of interest. and in this living rooom (as in all civilised places), we have standards, many of whic could be seen as purely subjective, especially to those who like to go beyond what would be considered almost universally as civil....You wouldnt argue with your "host" (or his deputies, in the form of say, family members) nor gratuitously insult his other guests, would you?  


So I can live and laugh at how sometimes the moderation here is certainly not singing off the same hymn sheet.

Can't argue with the host in his own house??

You must go to some right shit parties

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and I have yet to see a worse justification for someone pleading to be allowed to "do as they will"

Eh?

We are talking about the right to be critical.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Eh?

We are talking about the right to be critical.

And I'm on about sticking to decent standards of behaviour....

smelly-bandit wrote:One does not go to the rodeo and expect clean language

Lord Foul wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Can't argue with the host in his own house??

You must go to some right shit parties

well if you want to argue the logical inconsistency of "faith" then I'm your man...however if you wish to keep throwing dog ends at my cat after i told you not to, then I'll show you the door....

see smelly, theres argue then theres ARGUE

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Eh?

We are talking about the right to be critical.

And I'm on about sticking to decent standards of behaviour....

Point so far over your head, it must be a dot to you.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Can't argue with the host in his own house??

You must go to some right shit parties

well if you want to argue the logical inconsistency of "faith" then I'm your man...however if you wish to keep throwing dog ends at my cat after i told you not to, then I'll show you the door....

see smelly, theres argue then theres ARGUE

Place you on the ignore list???

Ok

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Point so far over your head, it must be a dot to you.

Its probably invisible, since you clearly dont have a germane one to make.

we've been here before didge...and you didnt win that one either

quite simply it is what it is...you can criticise (whinge) all you like, but it dont change anything....

we have been round and round this for how many years? and you STILL dont "get" it,,,,

its a bit like life.....it may not be (in your eyes) fair.....but its what you got......