Happy Face 29 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. past tense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 164 Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. maybe in the past but not in the here and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 164 Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) all they have to do is wear a burka and they will get back in easily enough, its all part of their "human rights" The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course Edited February 19, 2010 by AgentAxeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 all they have to do is wear a burka and they will get back in easily enough, its all part of their "human rights" The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course far too many of these geeky student types think time in the slammer should be "therapy" ie a holiday camp. 16 hours a day of rock bashing wouldn't do them any harm at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 164 Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 all they have to do is wear a burka and they will get back in easily enough, its all part of their "human rights" The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course far too many of these geeky student types think time in the slammer should be "therapy" ie a holiday camp. 16 hours a day of rock bashing wouldn't do them any harm at all. not certain if i would call gaol a holiday camp but i agree with the sentiment that it should be more of a 'punishment' as aposed to a 'rehabilitation'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. past tense. Personal freedoms weren't eroded on the same scale at the height of that terrorist campaign, despite the attacks being much more frequent. Al Qaeda are no greater threat now than the IRA were then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 all they have to do is wear a burka and they will get back in easily enough, its all part of their "human rights" The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course I'd jail the fucker for life. Why risk them roaming free again in another country to radicalise others and plan other attacks? ...still not sure what this has to do with women wearing a veil though, given there hasn't been a single attack on this country made possible thanks to the veil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. past tense. Personal freedoms weren't eroded on the same scale at the height of that terrorist campaign, despite the attacks being much more frequent. Al Qaeda are no greater threat now than the IRA were then. ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. past tense. Personal freedoms weren't eroded on the same scale at the height of that terrorist campaign, despite the attacks being much more frequent. Al Qaeda are no greater threat now than the IRA were then. ouch. not a bump as such.............. but wondered if this thread could hit the magic 1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20414 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. past tense. Personal freedoms weren't eroded on the same scale at the height of that terrorist campaign, despite the attacks being much more frequent. Al Qaeda are no greater threat now than the IRA were then. ouch. not a bump as such.............. but wondered if this thread could hit the magic 1000 Here's something that might help. Tough shit to them I say. Mind, if this comes into regular use I'm not going through myself if its cold. Women refuse to go through airport body scanners Body scanners have been criticised for being an invasion of privacy Two women were stopped from boarding a plane at Manchester Airport after refusing to undergo a full body scan. The passengers were due to fly to Islamabad on 19 February when they were selected at random to go through the new scanning machine. One, who is believed to be a Muslim, refused on religious reasons and the other cited health grounds. They are thought to be the first people to refuse to use the scanners since they became compulsory in February. The machines were introduced as a trial at the airport in October 2009. The women were warned they were legally required to go through the scanner, after being chosen at random, or they would not be allowed to fly, an airport spokesman said. 'Strict procedures' It is not clear whether the women were travelling together. Security staff use the X-ray machine to check for any concealed weapons or explosives but they have been criticised as an invasion of privacy. A Manchester Airport spokesman said: "Two female passengers who were booked to fly out of Terminal 2 refused to be scanned for medical and religious reasons. "In accordance with the government directive on scanners, they were not permitted to fly. "Body scanning is a big change for customers who are selected under the new rules and we are aware that privacy concerns are on our customers' minds, which is why we have put strict procedures to reassure them that their privacy will be protected." The women forfeited their flight and left the airport. In US airports where scanners are installed passengers have the option of a undergoing a body search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Leazes, Bombers have also worn "normal" clothes... should we ban anybody with darker skin in normal clothes too? show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. past tense. Personal freedoms weren't eroded on the same scale at the height of that terrorist campaign, despite the attacks being much more frequent. Al Qaeda are no greater threat now than the IRA were then. ouch. not a bump as such.............. but wondered if this thread could hit the magic 1000 Here's something that might help. Tough shit to them I say. Mind, if this comes into regular use I'm not going through myself if its cold. Women refuse to go through airport body scanners Body scanners have been criticised for being an invasion of privacy Two women were stopped from boarding a plane at Manchester Airport after refusing to undergo a full body scan. The passengers were due to fly to Islamabad on 19 February when they were selected at random to go through the new scanning machine. One, who is believed to be a Muslim, refused on religious reasons and the other cited health grounds. They are thought to be the first people to refuse to use the scanners since they became compulsory in February. The machines were introduced as a trial at the airport in October 2009. The women were warned they were legally required to go through the scanner, after being chosen at random, or they would not be allowed to fly, an airport spokesman said. 'Strict procedures' It is not clear whether the women were travelling together. Security staff use the X-ray machine to check for any concealed weapons or explosives but they have been criticised as an invasion of privacy. A Manchester Airport spokesman said: "Two female passengers who were booked to fly out of Terminal 2 refused to be scanned for medical and religious reasons. "In accordance with the government directive on scanners, they were not permitted to fly. "Body scanning is a big change for customers who are selected under the new rules and we are aware that privacy concerns are on our customers' minds, which is why we have put strict procedures to reassure them that their privacy will be protected." The women forfeited their flight and left the airport. In US airports where scanners are installed passengers have the option of a undergoing a body search. I think that not allowing them to fly is the correct decision here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Tough shit, aye. Shame they didn't cite what 'religious reasons' she gave as I'm sure they'd be cobblers just as I'm sure many muslims have been through the device. It might have helped edumacate about the device if they'd taken the opportunity to make her look an ignorant, unreasonable twat contextually speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20414 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 You've got to pity Gemmill and other sufferers of micropenis though. He'll be holidaying in the UK from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Just thrusts his man boobs out and gets in the lasses line, neebody batting an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) You could NOT make it up........ The British Tax Payer Pays a Mad Mullah More Than Our Frontline Soldier see the link. http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2010...h-v-soldier.jpg Here is an evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wanted to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett. He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching. Guido questions how he can be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations. In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan , takes home £17,004 for risking his life. If that Private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets. Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers? Is Choudary really actively seeking work? The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits Edited March 24, 2010 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 You could NOT make it up........ The British Tax Payer Pays a Mad Mullah More Than Our Frontline Soldier see the link. http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2010...h-v-soldier.jpg Here is an evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wanted to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett. He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching. Guido questions how he can be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations. In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan , takes home £17,004 for risking his life. If that Private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets. Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers? Is Choudary really actively seeking work? The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits Blame the Govt?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 16505 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 You could NOT make it up........ The British Tax Payer Pays a Mad Mullah More Than Our Frontline Soldier see the link. http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2010...h-v-soldier.jpg Here is an evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wanted to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett. He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching. Guido questions how he can be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations. In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan , takes home £17,004 for risking his life. If that Private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets. Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers? Is Choudary really actively seeking work? The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits It looks like something that someones knocked up during their lunch I'm not saying what it/you're claiming is right or wrong, but that doodle proves fuck all. ps are you Richard Littlejohn?....good win for the Spurs tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 164 Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 (edited) "Belgium moves to become first European country to ban the burka A parliamentary committee agreed yesterday to outlaw the wearing of face-covering veils in public. The full Parliament will vote later this month. Under the proposals, women could face a week in prison or a fine for wearing a veil in public. There are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Belgium – 6 per cent of the population. The text of the new law does not specifically mention burkas but makes it illegal for anyone to wear clothing ‘that covers all or most of the face’ in any public place. Left-wing MP Denis Ducarme left no doubt the rules were targeting-Muslim extremists. He said after the vote by the home affairs committee: ‘This sends a very strong signal to radical Islamists.’ The French- speaking liberals who have proposed the law argue that an inability to identify people presents a security risk and that the veil is a ‘walking prison’ for women. Daniel Bacquelaine, the bill’s chief promoter, said the ban might also be used against potentially violent demonstrators who covered their faces. He estimated that only a few hundred women in Belgium wore facial veils, but said it was a rising trend. The MP said Belgium did not wish to follow the ‘bad examples’ of Britain and the Netherlands, where he said many Muslims lived in separate communities. The proposal is expected to become law as early as June as it has the support of all five parties in the coalition government. But opponents may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. There have been debates over banning the burka in France, Switzerland and Italy. This week France’s highest administrative body said a full burka ban, which is supported by all political parties, could violate the French constitution and European law. Brussels has been linked to Islamic extremist terror operations a number of times since September 11. In 2003, 18 men were convicted of involvement in a terror cell with links to Al Qaeda." EDIT: shit, just realised no more spiderman masks!! Edited April 1, 2010 by AgentAxeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29479 Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 Police stop Muslim woman wearing veil in Italy A woman visiting a post office in Novara, north-western Italy, has been stopped by police for wearing an Islamic veil covering her face. A police official told the AFP news agency the woman would have to pay a 500-euro (£430) fine. It is the first such police action since Novara brought in a by-law in January banning clothing preventing immediate identification in public. The city is run by the anti-immigration Northern League. The party is a powerful junior coalition partner in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's national government. 'Not tolerated' Novara Mayor Massimo Giordano said the by-law was meant to deter women from covering themselves with the veil in public. "But unfortunately it is apparently not yet clear to everyone that clothes preventing the wearer's identification can be tolerated at home but not in public places, in schools, on buses or in post offices," he said, according to the Italian state news agency Ansa. "There are still some people that refuse to understand that our community in Novara does not accept and does not want people going around wearing the burka." He said the by-law was "the only tool at our disposal to stop behaviour that makes the already difficult process of integration even harder". The woman, described as a Tunisian national, was apparently visiting the post office with her husband when she was stopped by police. When her husband refused to let her be identified by male officers, they called in a female colleague, AFP reported. Tighter rules Italy has, since 1975, had a national anti-terrorism law which forbids any mask or clothing that makes it impossible to identify the wearer. However, the law permits exceptions for "justified cause", which has often been interpreted by courts as including religious reasons for wearing a veil, Ansa reports. Several local authorities have introduced tighter regulations, and a Northern League bill currently before parliament would specifically outlaw Islamic face veils. Similar moves have been taking place in other Western European countries. A ban on wearing masks and veils in public has passed the Belgian lower house and is set to go before the Senate. It would be the first such national law in Europe if approved. The French government is pressing for similar legislation, and at the weekend a German member of the European Parliament said a ban should be enforced across the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 what's the betting all the major countries in europe adopt this except stupid Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 what's the betting all the major countries in europe adopt this except stupid Britain. I doubt all countries will adopt it at all, but i would bet my life you're right that Britain doesn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 Have to say the Burka does imo interfere with human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 ...still not sure what this has to do with women wearing a veil though, given there hasn't been a single attack on this country made possible thanks to the veil. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...hes-stolen.html http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/emmahart...urkha_of_irony/ Not on the country exactly but Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now