Cadets Thratened with Beheading - ROP

[peterchichester]

I'm sure it was upsetting for the girls, but it was only two people shouting abuse. Lots of people shout abuse and it is of no consequence. Some of them are on this forum

 

[Deleted member 63160]

I'm sure it was upsetting for the girls, but it was only two people shouting abuse. Lots of people shout abuse and it is of no consequence. Some of them are on this forum

I was trying to think of a description that I felt explained "apologist" when it was mentioned the other day. Please see above.

If I called someone a "pkki" (which I wouldn't) I'd be breaking the law. Two men of "ethnic" extraction threaten to behead two young girls who are dressed in there army gear and " it was only two people shouting abuse".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Its only a matter of time until the rageheads start the vile act of beheading in the uk.
The scum capable of doing it are certainly in our midst.

It has, of course, already happened.
(To a soldier on leave in London, in case anyone has forgotten.)
Sadly, I'm confident it will happen again. The perpetrators seem to have no difficulty in finding their way here, which is no doubt why we are in this 'red alert' situation.

Have we also forgotten that the perpetrators were two black men of African descent who didn't even have a long beard?

So, another billion to fear.

Just saying.

 

[Dextraneous]

And the solution is?

 

[JBR]

And the solution is?

To apply the law equally to all ethnicities.

Can there be any objection to that?

And before any of the apologists assert that it already is, please see the example above quoted by Mitch.

 

[Newboy]

The perennial problem is back.

'Mitch' didn't quote an example - he gave a hypothetical situation.

Quote an example of the law being applied differently (with an attributable source) and then have a meaningful discussion rather than the bigoted abuse that seems to dominate this forum recently.

 

[Newboy]

I was trying to think of a description that I felt explained "apologist" when it was mentioned the other day. Please see above.

If you use the correct definition of apologist then it's simple.

It is the practise of defending a point of view using a systematic approach to the available information.

Sadly it has now being turned into an insult (usually by those incapable of using any systematic approach to debating any issue).

Origins are from the Greek legal system

 

[Newboy]

As before - give an attributable source rather than just posting up random comments.

Where is the guidance to solicitors?

If you've got a source then post it or link to it then we can discuss it

 

[Norcon]

As before - give an attributable source rather than just posting up random comments.

Where is the guidance to solicitors?

If you've got a source then post it or link to it then we can discuss it

Random comments and google apologist propaganda is all you post.

 

[Newboy]

To save you the time and trouble.

1) No such changes were made to statute law.

2) Advisory information was issued by the law society in March 2014

3) The advisory information was withdrawn by the law society in November 2014

So nothing has changed and Sharia law regarding wills is not part of UK statute law.

 

[Newboy]

As before - give an attributable source rather than just posting up random comments.

Where is the guidance to solicitors?

If you've got a source then post it or link to it then we can discuss it

Random comments and google apologist propaganda is all you post.

Yet again - when challenged to produce any substantive information to back up you claims you (and others) are unable to and resort to abuse and insult.

Hardly meaningful debate or discussion is it?

 

[Dextraneous]

Oh goody. Are we playing "quote the random law" game?. Hoorah. Here's one:

In London, it is illegal for a person (knowingly) with the plague to flag down a taxi or try and ride on a bus.

from:http://britainexplorer.com/feature-articles/item/170-curious-british-laws

 

[Norcon]

As before - give an attributable source rather than just posting up random comments.

Where is the guidance to solicitors?

If you've got a source then post it or link to it then we can discuss it

Random comments and google apologist propaganda is all you post.

Yet again - when challenged to produce any substantive information to back up you claims you (and others) are unable to and resort to abuse and insult.

Hardly meaningful debate or discussion is it?

Diddums
That wasn't abuse or insult. Just plain fact.

 

[Dextraneous]

In Switzerland:

It is against the law for any man to unilaterally declare war on another country.

from: http://www.newlyswissed.com/11-weird-swiss-laws/

 

[Norcon]

The law society have given the new guidelines their seal of approval and are endorsing a racist and sexist legal system.