Why is it the "LEFT" think that they ONLY have the right to FREE SPEECH?

[attofishpi]

...this is seriously a rhetorical question - but what is it like to have no spine? You FDP and Keir Starmer know..

Says the person who can't own up to any lies or clarify their own position on just about anything... You don't know what it's like to have a spine.

LMAO - the day you provide LIES from me rather than YOUR lies about me is the day you gain an ounce of integrity.

[attofishpi]

--

Why are you and Flashpoopypants so scared to answer these questions?

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

[Flannel Jesus]

--

Why are you and Flashpoopypants so scared to answer these questions?

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

Because the questions weren't relevant ot the conversation. We were trying to get clarity on YOUR position. OUR answers to those questions don't help us get clarity on YOUR position. Does that make sense to you?

If I want to know what Stephen Fry thinks of Muslim Immigrants, I'm not going to waste time answering what MY favorite flavour of ice cream is.

[attofishpi]

...it's ok ...just admit the questions require a reasonable answer - and THE ONLY reasonable answers are contradictory to your STANCE.

[Flannel Jesus]

...it's ok ...just admit the questions require a reasonable answer - and THE ONLY reasonable answers are contradictory to your STANCE.

None of this is about my stance. You don't even know what my stance is. We haven't been talking about my stance, we've been asking you to clarify yours - something that was clearly very painful for you.

[FlashDangerpants]

People have been trying for pages now to get clarity on exactly what you meant by that, but you've thus far been too cowardly to give clarification. Do you want the English navy to go murder people in boats in the English channel?

I answered it IDIOT. It means that patrols of British Navy operate along the SHALLOW shores of the French coast and sink dinghies - rather than BRITISH tax payers paying 500,000 pounds a year to the French for WHAT?

Inside French territorial lwaters you want the RN to commit acts of piracy?

[FlashDangerpants]

Describing it and then refusing to clarify as well. It's like he knows he has something to be ashamed of.

He was banned before for threatening to come to the UK and do something terroristic. It was a matter of tie before he goes for more of that watchlist goodness.

HAHA LMAO - I was going to whisper in a Muslims ear something VERY profound -- nothing "terroristic"

PS. That wasn't why I was banned.

Orly? Why were you banned then?

If you don't think this is terroristic you are madder than you seem

..next time I am in England - I WILL round them up - the Muslims will succumb to the Wrath of GOD that I will bring..

[attofishpi]

If you don't think this is terroristic you are madder than you seem

..next time I am in England - I WILL round them up - the Muslims will succumb to the Wrath of GOD that I will bring..

Oh dear simpleton - you need to understand first that God exists, then the WRATH it can inflict upon ones MIND.

Terrorism...mmm...at a stretch.

[attofishpi]

The cowards fail to answer these questions - BECAUSE the ONLY reasonable answers eliminate ANY reason for allowing open borders..

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

[Flannel Jesus]

The cowards fail to answer these questions - BECAUSE the ONLY reasonable answers eliminate ANY reason for allowing open borders..

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

I don't assume that 95% of men that seem asylum left women behind. If I had to guess, which I don't but I have no statistics so I might as well, I would guess that most male asylum seekers who come alone probably did not leave a wife behind.

I don't know what anybody "should have felt".

I think you, in your haste to be a ****, are making an incorrect assumption that I want all Muslim asylum seekers to show up to England and reap benefits. Believe it or not, I actually do not want that, and nothing I've said would lead a reasonable person (which you're obviously not) to conclude that I want that.

[FlashDangerpants]

People have been trying for pages now to get clarity on exactly what you meant by that, but you've thus far been too cowardly to give clarification. Do you want the English navy to go murder people in boats in the English channel?

I answered it IDIOT. It means that patrols of British Navy operate along the SHALLOW shores of the French coast and sink dinghies - rather than BRITISH tax payers paying 500,000 pounds a year to the French for WHAT?

Inside French territorial waters you want the RN to commit acts of piracy? You want us to invade France for this?

You can't be more than 100m off the shore to not be effectively murdering at least some of the people when you slit their dinghy in water as cold and turbulent as the English Channel. If you wait until you aren't illegally in French waters to do this, then they will all die because it takes years of prep to swim 12 miles in the Channel.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you don't think this is terroristic you are madder than you seem

..next time I am in England - I WILL round them up - the Muslims will succumb to the Wrath of GOD that I will bring..

Oh dear simpleton - you need to understand first that God exists, then the WRATH it can inflict upon ones MIND.

Terrorism...mmm...at a stretch.

That's just terrorism. You shouldn't be allowed on aircraft if you make threats like that.

[godelian]

The cowards fail to answer these questions - BECAUSE the ONLY reasonable answers eliminate ANY reason for allowing open borders..

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

If the Royal Navy shoots on dinghies, they expose themselves to accusations of war crimes. The admiralty won't even cover for the commander of the ship, who will personally have to deal with the legal case.

Even WWII German Nazi naval commanders would have adamantly refused to open fire on a lifeboat floating on the high seas with just unarmed civilians on board.

It would push the case far beyond a simple breach of the Refugee Convention. At that point, we are talking about the international law of the sea and the general laws of wars, such as the La Hague and Geneva conventions.

There is simply no way that Royal Navy officers will obey that kind of orders, as they would in any case remain personally liable for legal consequences. An order is an order ("Befehl ist Befehl") has in history never been accepted as a valid defense. If HM government or the London admiralty order this kind of action, they will simply no longer have a Navy.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, about this desire you have to inflict terror on refugees by stabbing their lil' boats. Have you at least decided to rediscover enough Christian charity not to be that evil?

People have been trying for pages now to get clarity on exactly what you meant by that, but you've thus far been too cowardly to give clarification. Do you want the English navy to go murder people in boats in the English channel?

I answered it IDIOT. It means that patrols of British Navy operate along the SHALLOW shores of the French coast and sink dinghies - rather than BRITISH tax payers paying 500,000 pounds a year to the French for WHAT?

Inside French territorial waters you want the RN to commit acts of piracy? You want us to invade France for this?

You can't be more than 100m off the shore to not be effectively murdering at least some of the people when you slit their dinghy in water as cold and turbulent as the English Channel. If you wait until you aren't illegally in French waters to do this, then they will all die because it takes years of prep to swim 12 miles in the Channel.