The relentless pile on, the consistent regurgitation of the same stuff goading and trying to gotcha him. It’s a lie to suggest I asked for you to be cancelled, but you know that, just want to be the victim.
2 Likes
I just answered him. You guys are incredibly sensitive.
3 Likes
Hi, fair enough. Taking a break is a good idea. I’m also getting there because of the level of utter dishonesty and lack of conviction from other posters. Happy to mouth off but won’t state their actual position. On such a hot topic I’m not interested in those people personally.
When you want to pick up again with me, maybe we can have a healthy debate just addressing 1 or 2 points at a time though and then move on?
You have clearly put a lot of effort into your replies, but to be honest they are so long it’s hard to really move forward without being more concise. I’m here when you wanna talk this through again. Maybe we can both learn something and end up in a better place, who knows?
Is that ok?
1 Like
So people accused of a sexual offence should not be entitled to a legal defence? Well I guess that would address the low conviction rate
1 Like
I missed it. What did you mean when you said you’re suprised it’s allowed?
You need to either retract it or own it in my view.
There’s a flip-side you may not have noticed if you haven’t been here long.
I’ve had a couple of run-ins with Mascot the last few weeks and suggested it best if we didn’t engage with each other anymore.
He continued to quote me and the last few days has taken to referencing me in reply’s to other posters. To me it was clear goading and provocation. When I addressed it yesterday my post was deleted, apparently it was ‘flagged as inappropriate by the community’. There was nothing offensive about it, I just pointed out he was goading me.
1 Like
Well another sly dig at me I guess. I’ve stated my position quite clearly, including how I thought your question was the wrong one to be asking, and being honest, very leading. And already this morning that argument you tried to put forward fell apart in your own words.
Yeah a break is a mighty fine idea
2 Likes
Think its good for debate to disagree with people, but you’re rubbing people up the wrong way by calling them cowards etc.
Be civil, have banter etc , but try and leave insults at the door…i know it can be hard as we all fall down that rabbit hole at times ( except noo noo and red whippet ).
2 Likes
In fairness I hadn’t seen that. You have to be able to take what you give, that goes for all of us. Cheers
4 Likes
I didnt say that, and you know I didnt say that.
Cherry picking seems to be flavour of the month here lately
You won’t engage honestly which is a shame. Just answer my question. It’s really not difficult and you must surely have an opinion on it or surely you wouldn’t feel so strongly?
If you (or anyone) said (this is just for example) something like: you honestly think it’s made the UK worse, but you feel we should keep them here anyway for humanitarian reasons, that would be an honest answer and then we could have a proper talk about what we think more specifically, but I’m not digging at you. You are not unique in being a dishonest debater with no conviction in your opinions.
Is the UK a better or worse place to live for hundreds of thousands of small boat migrants in it, or has it made no difference in your view?
1 Like
It’s pretty well documented that the prosecution and conviction rate for sex offences is pitifully low. Quite a few MPs have campaigned to change this. In fact Keir Starmer made changes when he was Director of Public Prosecutions.
The problem is that the threshold for evidence needs to be high, and the evidence is often not corroborated.
4 Likes
[quote=“Dane, post:1965, topic:5783, full:true”]
Oh I’ve been 100% honest.
What the pair of you can’t seem to grasp is when it comes to stuff like this, I try to play a straight bat. What the law says, what the process is and so on. My opinion is follow the law. Follow the process. It’s a bit odd that when you apply that thinking with the correct resourcing, immigration falls and deportations are up. Caveat. Labour did add a law requiring documentation to enter the UK. But it works.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I gather you don’t like those particular laws and processes. Fine but when @Dane says person X should not be defended in court, I ask is it just that person or all people in court? We have a law that says everyone is entitled to a legal defence.
Somehow this makes me dishonest and far left. Go figure.
6 Likes
As opposed to the savages in the United Kingdom where such behaviour is not only tolerated, but actively condoned (see Sarah Everard) and practised at the highest echeleons?
Physician, heal thyself.
1 Like
I doubt that tbh. Isn’t one of the bedrocks of British jurisprudence that ignorance of the law is not a defence ?
Your obsessions with people arriving on small boats is essentially racist. If they were that horrible they would have been turned back by the asylum process. But the last I looked, rejections were no higher than those arriving through other means.
1 Like
Probably one for the AI thread, but it’s genuinely staggering how many people think “AI” is anything but artificial idiocy. It is not reliable, despite what the people who keep trying to sell it to us say.
3 Likes
Quite frankly, this can also be said about the immigration of white British men to many parts of the world. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
1 Like
