The examples you have given don't support your claim, in fact look at the post stream you will find the unpleasant posts are mostly the other way.
And my post is true, he does moan about it endlessly, so it is fact.
No more 'windrush' scandals...
- Thread starter ellal
- Start date
The examples you have given don't support your claim, in fact look at the post stream you will find the unpleasant posts are mostly the other way.
And my post is true, he does moan about it endlessly, so it is fact.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
They do not add to the discussion but try to denigrate the other person.
S
sodthisforfun
perhaps you should re-read what I actually wrote and what Johnd told me I wrote.
S
sodthisforfun
Ha, now that is hilarious coming from you.
Sponsored Links
S
sodthisforfun
That's right. You said Theresa wants to get rid, I said she isn't able. At no point did I deny she once said it, immediately I said she did say it on the back of another terrorist attack.
Then I think you told me that I said she was going to be kicked out before that happened which is a lie on your behalf.
Then you kept banging on about this for some strange reason, I have noticed that you tend to either go on tangents, falsify or go quiet when you're in the wrong. Harlow for example.
That isn't what I said, and it isn't what I think. You just made it up. which is a lie on your behalf.
S
sodthisforfun
Try reading the whole thing in order, would be helpful. As would learning that there is a difference between Theresa's wants and what is actually possible.
You can say it as many times as you like, that Theresa wants to get rid of human rights act as some sort of ****ty stick on here when actually without the support of the majority in parliament its never going to happen. As you already know, this is all I was talking about. I never denied she said it, I never asked for any parts of it to be removed, I never said she'd get kicked out as a reason as to why it won't happen, ALL I said it won't happen because she needs the majority to vote for it too. I can't see Labour settling for any less protection and rights for the people in the UK after brexit, can you? Thankfully, I'd like to add.
You're a strange man Johnd, trying to converse with you is very much like hard work.
You can say it as many times as you like, that Theresa wants to get rid of human rights act as some sort of ****ty stick on here when actually without the support of the majority in parliament its never going to happen. As you already know, this is all I was talking about. I never denied she said it, I never asked for any parts of it to be removed, I never said she'd get kicked out as a reason as to why it won't happen, ALL I said it won't happen because she needs the majority to vote for it too. I can't see Labour settling for any less protection and rights for the people in the UK after brexit, can you? Thankfully, I'd like to add.
You're a strange man Johnd, trying to converse with you is very much like hard work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Posting:
'Theresa May wants to abolish the human rights act' is taking it grossly out of context.
If it what you think, you are misleading yourself.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-reforms-in-breach-of-northern-a7500416.html
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-may-human-rights-european-charter-terrorists
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/what-human-rights-act-theresa-13151403
and there are many more such headlines.
It is accurate to say that TM wants to scrap human rights by withdrawing UK from the ECHR. Unless someone wants to pedantically argue that there is a difference between planning to do something and wanting to something.
It also reasonable to say that (hopefully) she would be prevented in doing so by other politicians and the courts (brought through challenges form private individuals).
It is worrying that some think that the removal of human rights will be reserved for illegal immigrants or suspected terrorists.
We have only recently seen how supposedly well-intentioned legislation can seriously affect the lives of innocent people when wrongly executed. (the policy or legislation, not the people
)By default, those that have no objection to their human rights being removed don't deserve them in the first place!
(or maybe they simply don't consider their own 'worth' enough?)
If a person opts out from being an organ donor (given the system now being proposed) should they not be banned from receiving a donated organ?
And should a person who protests against 'animal testing' be refused life saving drugs that have been tested on animals?
(or maybe they simply don't consider their own 'worth' enough?)
If a person opts out from being an organ donor (given the system now being proposed) should they not be banned from receiving a donated organ?
And should a person who protests against 'animal testing' be refused life saving drugs that have been tested on animals?
S
sodthisforfun
Who is 'their own'?
Misquoting (moving apostrophes) makes you look a tad stupid!
So I suggest you read it again.
(If of course you have managed to struggle past the 'Janet and John' level)
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Their own 'human rights'.
I thought that was obvious in the context.
So it should be 'their own what', not 'who is their own'
S
sodthisforfun
Wow.
Sponsored Links
