Frosty Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 The stories you refer to appeared in the Cowal Courier on 15th & 17th July respectively, yet you expect the court cases & sentences to have been dealt with already? I would question why the Glasgow Uni law cabal haven't as yet pointed out your unrealistic expectations regarding the speed of the mills of justice. Especially the poster that "tries to keep the debate honest" Interesting as I'm sure the Cowal Courier is I didn't fancy paying 50p to subscribe to it in order to read the full articles. I'm sure the shop was vandalised but Wings present it as fact that it was done by a Loyalist gang. Where is the evidence for that let alone evidence that it was part of an organised BT campaign of intimidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 See my post. It should be a genuine strength of the Yes campaign that we're able to disagree with each other on non-independence matters without it being seen as some kind of treachery and a sign of being a Unionist sleeper agent. Indeed. With the deluge of propaganda it is easy to see how some of the more staunch nationalists get themselves boxed into a binary mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 To be fair on XBL, he's made this point on numerous occasions. It's rare to see any pro-union supporter criticise another pro-union supporter on here, no matter how ridiculous the viewpoint advanced, yet Yes supporters often disagree on trivial points Indeed I have. I just don't count ad lib as an independence supporter. As you say, I frequently point out that the unionists march in lockstep, whereas independence supporters are intellectually honest enough to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Indeed. With the deluge of propaganda it is easy to see how some of the more staunch nationalists get themselves boxed into a binary mindset. Did you mean to say unionists here? Unionists never disagree with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I'd not heard about them until today, but I don't doubt that the Orange Order have been doing and saying unpleasant things. They're a vile organisation and represent a pretty ugly side of Unionism. As much as I agree with your sentiments, that wasn't my point. I was wondering why you hadn't pointed out to Frosty that the vast majority of criminal prosecutions that go to court are not disposed of within 5 weeks of the offence being committed, thus showing his point about the current lack of convictions to be nonsensical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 As much as I agree with your sentiments, that wasn't my point. I was wondering why you hadn't pointed out to Frosty that the vast majority of criminal prosecutions that go to court are not disposed of within 5 weeks of the offence being committed, thus showing his point about the current lack of convictions to be nonsensical? Well your post was the first I'd heard of the court cases incidents. How can I pull him up on something you hadn't posted about yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Well your post was the first I'd heard of the court cases. How can I pull him up on something you hadn't posted about yet? You didn't read his posts demanding I show him evidence of the court cases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Ironic coming from the biggest liar on the site. The truth of course is that you ran away when challenged on your tear-soaked intimidation nonsense. Where are the details of the terrible abuse the pregnant balloon wielding woman was supposed to have endured. I see Mr Rational who got so emotional I assumed he had to have witnessed it first hand hasn't been on to give us the gory details either. Where are the links to the court cases giving the details of the convictions of the loyalist gang of vandals and the Orange intimidating letter writers. Your lies have become so predictable that people are posting what you are going to say next and getting it spot on every time. Along with the tiresome requests to Reynard over the pensions numbers you have become a joke. I believe you must be in the top 5 most effective posters for the No side with the way you are carrying on. Keep it up. Here you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You said that 'unpleasant' is relative. It need not be. Of course it is, you silly sod. Racists find black people "unpleasant", normal human beings do not. Fucking duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Interesting as I'm sure the Cowal Courier is I didn't fancy paying 50p to subscribe to it in order to read the full articles. I'm sure the shop was vandalised but Wings present it as fact that it was done by a Loyalist gang. Where is the evidence for that let alone evidence that it was part of an organised BT campaign of intimidation. Are you seriously suggesting that threats to nail-bomb the editor of a newspaper for reporting alleged criminal damage are less culpable because they may be a one-off by a unionist supporter instead of an organised campaign by a unionist organisation? Wow. Just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You didn't read his posts demanding I show him evidence of the court cases? I just flicked past it quickly tbh. Didn't really take in the content of his post. I hadn't heard about the Loyalist stuff and wasn't particularly interested in it (it's a matter for the police). I had no idea when they had happened, therefore no idea whether it was something recent or something historical that had lead to recent sheriff court appearances. Not really caring or being minded to question the veracity of your claims and the reference you'd made to it, I didn't bother to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I didn't say it was a legal right. So...not a right, is that what you're saying? Because rights tend to be legal things, aren't they? So you should know? Because you're a Glasgow Uni student and all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 So...not a right, is that what you're saying? Because rights tend to be legal things, aren't they? So you should know? Because you're a Glasgow Uni student and all?Rights are not exclusively legal concepts. Moral rights are also things.Here to help. ETA: however depending on the jurisdiction you're in, different framing of, among other things, the right to family life contained in our context in the ECHR (see the reason the Gender Recognition laws were introduced in the UK) and in other human rights instruments (UNHRC being another) and the fundamental legal rights constitutionally or otherwise guaranteed in respect of private life and self-determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Well your post was the first I'd heard of the court cases incidents. How can I pull him up on something you hadn't posted about yet? You missed Frosty demanding details of the sentences handed down for events that only occurred a few weeks ago then? I'm sure I read quite a few posts by him where he made this demand. Strange that you missed them, considering your honesty crusade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You said that 'unpleasant' is relative. It need not be. You have two choices: Agree with we or keep posting unjustifiable verbiage. Of course it is, you silly sod. Racists find black people "unpleasant", normal human beings do not. Fucking duh. OK I think I will leave this thread for a while. You, Ad lLb and Vikington seem never to want a fair discussion but prefer to use abuse and tropes. I'll go back to The BRALT which is much more reasonable that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Unionists = free ride. Do you not see why you are getting this reputation? The weird thing is that I don't think I've ever mentioned the orange order thing. I wasn't even sure what he was on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You missed Frosty demanding details of the sentences handed down for events that only occurred a few weeks ago then? I'm sure I read quite a few posts by him where he made this demand. Strange that you missed them, considering your honesty crusade I didn't know when the events he was referring to happened and in any case only skim-read the post. I don't really read Frosty's posts for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Rights are not exclusively legal concepts. Moral rights are also things. "a) Chelsea Manning has the right to identify as a woman and to be referred to as such" So this is pish, isn't it? He doesn't actually have any of these so-called "rights", it's just your opinion you're referring to. Since "moral rights" don't actually have any weight in law whatsoever, correct? Is there any particular reason you keep on presenting your opinions as facts without any evidence or factual basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Unionists = free ride. Do you not see why you are getting this reputation? The weird thing is that I don't think I've ever mentioned the orange order thing. I wasn't even sure what he was on about. Well hold the bus then. How the f**k do you expect me to call him out over the speed of the justice system over a post he directs at you, challenging you to provide evidence of court cases of alleged loyalist vandalism that I've never heard about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Well hold the bus then. How the f**k do you expect me to call him out over the speed of the justice system over a post he directs at you, challenging you to provide evidence of court cases of alleged loyalist vandalism that I've never heard about? Its a minor point of law. Isn't that the equivalent of activating the bat signal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.