RightMinds

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7318

Coupled Moment wrote:

bluebellnutter wrote:

So what laws has he broken? Even if you want to believe he was incompetent (he wasn't), that's not illegal.

The one that prats tend to cite are those laid out in the Treason Act. Of course they've never read the act and only have the vaguest understanding of what "treason" is but that doesn't stop them going on (and on and on and cocking on) about it.

The "People should be hunged for things I don't like" Treason act - passed by the bloke at the pub.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:04 pm

Saying something is treason is like saying it was "murder on the Bakerloo Line" yesterday.

Any sign of Adam Applegarth and Fred Goodwin in that article? Not criminals, but if we're going after Gordo...

Messianic Trees · **Joined:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm **Posts:** 2827

I'm sure there are serious questions which could be asked about Britain's involvement in Afghanistan. The Mail clearly isn't the place for that sort of yoghurt knitting nonsense though:

We're dealing with savages in Afghanistan: It's time to threaten hellfire and get our troops home NOW

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1oVk9E1Le

Quote:

I am getting sick and tired with the left wing politically correct meddling in other countries constantly at the expense of this country. I am also tired of the BBC's brainwashing on everything islamic or Arabic; the biased station is fast turning into an Islamic extremist sympathiser. This Eton/Oxbridge/cambridge mindset of 'save the world' socialism and largesse is starting to cause real damage to the very social fabric of this nation. We have Islamic extremism growing fast in this country but because of the politically correct fascists who silence any debate on the issue we, the normal people, are suffering. Please, please we need a radical revolution in this country to overthrow what is a complacent, arrogant and self interested political system that seems to favour every cause but the British one.
- Alex-John, Scotland, 7/3/2012 13:15 129

Quote:

The cost in terms of lives and money is not justified !. These are third world farmers running around on donkeys , mopeds and pick up trucks !. They are no threat to any of their neighbours like Iran or Pakistan . Our biggest threat is in the South Atlantic where we may have to defend our Falkland Islands !.
- Clive, Benfleet Great Britain, 7/3/2012 14:41 50

ezinra · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:55 am

The only change to my life caused by "Islamic extremism" in this country is that I now have to label my luggage when I take the train. I do not consider this a great hardship. Perhaps I'm not a "normal" person to Alex-John.

The symbolism of the Falklands is wildly out of proportion to their actual value, isn't it? The colonial spirit dies hard.

Messianic Trees · **Joined:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm **Posts:** 2827

Immigration to Britain is greater than at any time in history. We must pull up the drawbridge before it is too late

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1oYrtxTYK

Unsurprisingly, the author, Sir Andrew Green (founder of Migrationwatch), is full of shit:

Quote:

[T]here can be no doubt that all this is the result of deliberate Labour policy. It is impossible to admit 3.5 million people in twelve years just by mistake. This was confirmed in an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 by a former speech writer for Blair, Straw and Blunkett. He revealed that mass immigration 'didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 until February 2008 was to open up the UK to mass immigration'. He added that there was 'a driving political purpose; that mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK multicultural'.

Equally unsurprisingly, the comments have already been overrun by some complete and utter cunts:

Quote:

I agree with the article, and Blair, Brown and Co, ought to be shot for the untold damage they have done to this nation. However, there is another problem to overcome before this can be tackled with real purpose: that is membership of the EUSSR and the absurdity that is the human rights act. If we can extricate ourselves from the grip of the politburo in Brussels and dump the human rights abomination, we may be able to save our nation from the social disaster that will occur when our infrastructure (economic, social, education, rail, road, water, power, housing) collapses.It really is that bad, and all because Blair 'had a dream'.
- Mr despondent, Bracknell, UK, 8/3/2012 19:21

Quote:

Labour as a PC political force should banished from this land and the perpetrators hung!
- the big bbc media cover up, Edinburgh , 8/3/2012 20:01

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:25 pm

Quote:

This was confirmed in an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 by a former speech writer for Blair, Straw and Blunkett. He revealed that mass immigration 'didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 until February 2008 was to open up the UK to mass immigration'. He added that there was 'a driving political purpose; that mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK multicultural'.

Andy Neather didn't say that, did he?

How are the figures now, Andrew Green? Don't look that different to me. Even with students (off whome we make money) cut right back.

Messianic Trees · **Joined:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm **Posts:** 2827

This is the article in the Standard and a subsequent clarification.

davidjay · **Joined:** Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:24 pm **Posts:** 3809

And this, people, is the way the debate about immigration being demanded will work. Make up some figures, make up some quotes, get some comments from anti-immigration groups. Get as much fabricated evidence as you can to prove your argument and ignore the rest.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:50 pm

Messianic Trees wrote:

This is the article in the Standard and a subsequent clarification.

Ah thanks. I see he's done a bit of "both sides need to grow up". I expect he thinks the right are much worse. He's put the "balance" bit at the end. I like his style.

ezinra · **Posted:** Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:04 am

The law doesn't give a damn about fathers

By Louis De Bernières

One-sided bollocks from start to finish.

Quote:

Some years ago, I was outside a pizza restaurant when a young woman turned up, pushing a pram. She was preceded by a small boy who must have been about four years old. He stopped at the door, whereupon she said: ‘Well, open the f***ing door, you little s**t.’

I think my disillusionment with the idea that there was something sacred, sublime and beautiful about mothers and motherhood began on that day.

Oh vomit. Mothers don't get custody because they're the fucking virgin Mary. They get it because they're usually the primary carers.

Quote:

Shortly after, I spent some years working in a truancy centre, where we tried to give a little general education to children who had missed years at school. In many cases, it was clear that the reason for these absences had been mothers who kept them at home either because the women were lonely or because they needed the children as babysitters.

Evidence? And the presumption is that men would do better. Again, evidence?

Quote:

Judges of both sexes are the kind of people who have never had to change a nappy in their lives, and don’t see why any man would want to.

Evi-fucking-dence???

Quote:

Now that family (in)justice [ho ho] is under review, any male MPs with small children ought to take note of what might be done to them the moment their marriage or relationship goes wrong, as mine did two years ago.

Be done to them? It's as if men have no representation at all. What are you paying your solicitor for then?

Quote:

Lest I seem misogynist, I should say that the passion you have for your children is the most powerful and overwhelming emotion you can have, and the behaviour of some mothers is entirely explicable because of this.

Sorry, "lest" didn't work there. Surely the behaviour of "some mothers" can be explained in relation to the behaviour of some fathers? But I forgot, men are always the victims.

Quote:

One of the reasons I became a father was that a friend of mine told me that until you have had children, you know nothing of human love. I have since found out that he was right.

Oh barf. No wonder I hated Captain Corelli and his crappy mandolin.

Quote:

As I once had a girlfriend who attacked me every time she got drunk, I am not inclined to fall for any myths about the gentler sex.

That "lest" still isn't doing it for me.

Quote:

British Family Law doesn’t, in short, give a damn about men. A judge in Cambridge told me that he was appalled by how often men were simply treated as sperm donors and cashpoints.

Another anecdotal generalisation. There are more: mothers use "dirty tricks" and refuse to work a full-time job just to piss off the ex.

Quote:

I said to my solicitor: ‘Why can’t I just go and kidnap them back?’ But I was advised not to get involved in open warfare.

And he's surprised that the mother got primary custody?

Quote:

Children are sometimes annoyed about having to live in two places at once, but that is all it is — a bit of an irritation.

I’d be mildly vexed if I was halfway through a jigsaw puzzle and had to leave it at one house to go to the other, just as I am certainly vexed when I discover that all my children’s socks have disappeared because they are at their mother’s house.

Sod the children. They'll cope. They'll be mildly fucking vexed. De Bernières was lucky to get one weekend in two.

At no point does he provide any evidence to back up the headline that the law is unfair. And all the comments pointing out that the legal system is nothing like he describes are red-arrowed, unlike:

Quote:

But there's not any mention in this article of the VASTLY higher number of men who just walk away!!! and all those who play daddy when it suits them. What about THOSE children??
- shafted at every turn, Walsall UK, 10/3/2012 10:29
+++++
The usual myth propagated by the feminist lobby. The fact is that 73% of break ups are down to the mother not the father and it susually because they fancy a different bit of meat ie: selfish reasons. Melanie Phillips wrote a very good article on this very subject some time ago.

- Tommy Cockles, Liverpool, 10/3/2012 10:46 Rating 13

shyamz · **Posted:** Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:32 pm

ezinra wrote:

The law doesn't give a damn about fathers

Quote:

Now that family (in)justice [ho ho] is under review, any male MPs with small children ought to take note of what might be done to them the moment their marriage or relationship goes wrong, as mine did two years ago.

I think that explains most of this bollocks.

Quote:

One of the reasons I became a father was that a friend of mine told me that until you have had children, you know nothing of human love. I have since found out that he was right.

No he's not, he's a smug deluded c**t who likes to believe that crap to make them feel better about how much of their freedom they lost which they wish deep down they hadn't.

I say this because I've never met anyone -man or woman- who's said that kind of crap who wasn't a twat in some way or other, and there must be a reason why they feel the need to belittle and laud it over those who have no children.

A happy person wouldn't need to.

Quote:

British Family Law doesn’t, in short, give a damn about men. A judge in Cambridge told me that he was appalled by how often men were simply treated as sperm donors and cashpoints.

One person's concerned parent is another person's golddigging sperm collector. It is too open to personal interpretation, prejudice and experience to make any purely anecdotal evidence from this judge valid. Unless of course you (like the writer who spewed this piece) agree with him.

Quote:

I said to my solicitor: ‘Why can’t I just go and kidnap them back?’ But I was advised not to get involved in open warfare.

And now you've admited to that in a national bloody newspaper you never will get custody - how clever, you fucktard.

And good, I wouldn't want my kids to be primarily raised by someone that damn stupid.

Quote:

Children are sometimes annoyed about having to live in two places at once, but that is all it is — a bit of an irritation.

[/quote]

Personaly, I'd cite this comment as evidence of this going beyond concern for the kid's welfare, and that it is now more a case of pride and stubborn point scoring between him and his ex, with the kids viewed more as bargaining chips and tools with which he can hurt his ex out of revenge.

Why else would you as that holiest of things - a parent- not be concerned (or it would seem even aware) of the huge negative emotional effect this situation can have on children?

I hope he takes time from thinking up anecdotes about his evil ex to tell the judge, to think about it from a child's point of view. After all, isn't that what parents are supposed to do?

As for him supplying evidence to support his views, he doesn't need to - he is an involved parent, so when it comes to his oppinions on childrearing, the law or ndeed anything, he is right about everything and will be taken on trust.

I'd hate to know this man. I'm sure when his mates go round his house all he ever talks about is hs "bloody ex wife".

Althea · **Posted:** Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:39 pm

He and Liz Jones would make a perfect couple.

ezinra · **Posted:** Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:58 pm

shyamz wrote:

Quote:

Children are sometimes annoyed about having to live in two places at once, but that is all it is — a bit of an irritation.

Personaly, I'd cite this comment as evidence of this going beyond concern for the kid's welfare, and that it is now more a case of pride and stubborn point scoring between him and his ex, with the kids viewed more as bargaining chips and tools with which he can hurt his ex out of revenge.

Why else would you as that holiest of things - a parent- not be concerned (or it would seem even aware) of the huge negative emotional effect this situation can have on children?

It's astonishing how little reference he makes to the child(ren) in this article. They get lost in a frenzy of whatabouttehmenz.

There are all kinds of reasons why it can be more than "a bit of an irritation" for children to split their lives between two homes. De Bernières' argument rests on the idea that mothers deliberately move away so that the child has to attend a school where she, and not the father, lives. Doubtlessly this happens, but in my experience a) it's usually the father that moves out first and b) whoever moves out often goes to live with (or close to) another member of their family, which in this day and age could be some distance away. When my parents split up, my mother moved to a different country. It certainly would have mildly vexed me to travel between London and the south of France every weekend.

shyamz · **Posted:** Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:55 pm

The biggest worry is if the children start to believe that they are somehow to blame or that one or both parents don't love them any more.

How can he be unaware of this, or worse not accept or care about it?

Arnold · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:47 pm

Quote:

Cheer up darlin'! ...well perhaps I will when men stop making stupid, sexist remarks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1oo87jDGu
Inevitably, there's a lot of cuntery in the comments.

RightMinds

Who is online