ballaughbiker Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Quote You've made a claim about his viewpoint. Looks like you've nothing to support that. Why make stuff up? His views are widely available in the reporting media at the time of his trial. Your laziness in not looking it up for yourself does not equate to making anything up. Well it wouldn't in a reasonable person's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: His views are widely available in the reporting media at the time of his trial. Your laziness in not looking it up for yourself does not equate to making anything up. Well it wouldn't in a reasonable person's mind. Trial? Look at the post above mine. A reasonable person would assume I was replying to that, not one two posts previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: His views are widely available in the reporting media at the time of his trial. Your laziness in not looking it up for yourself does not equate to making anything up. Well it wouldn't in a reasonable person's mind. Your claim, your burden of proof... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 22 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: Maybe. However in this digital age there's a lot that can be prevented and intercepted by authorities apart from the police. Have they been similarly trimmed? The coalition administration changed how "persons of interest" were dealt with. I can't recall the details but even the soulless Iain Duncan Smith called them "a mistake" but being tories they didn't change them back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Quote A reasonable person would assume I was replying to that, not one two posts previously. So I am correct in that you are really trying to eke out someone else's views rather than his? If so that would seem a trifle duplicitous. It's pretty clear to anyone with an IQ of >80 to whom I was referring. Your sense of humour is sometimes a benefit to contributions but hardly in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 23 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: So I am correct in that you are really trying to eke out someone else's views rather than his? If so that would seem a trifle duplicitous. It's pretty clear to anyone with an IQ of >80 to whom I was referring. Your sense of humour is sometimes a benefit to contributions but hardly in this thread. Actually, it was not clear. I read Mr Sausage's post as being in reply to this post and especially the first line; 1 hour ago, homarus said: Here's another Wac-ist Brit ! I said it a year or so back , that this guy and others like him will be the ones that the deluded leftists will run to and expect to pull them out of the shite when it all kicks off , even though the pseudo intellectual morons have vilified guys like this as thick as pigshit wac-ist ,xenophobic little Englanders for years ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 30 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: So I am correct in that you are really trying to eke out someone else's views rather than his? If so that would seem a trifle duplicitous. It's pretty clear to anyone with an IQ of >80 to whom I was referring. Your sense of humour is sometimes a benefit to contributions but hardly in this thread. I suggest you go back and read the thread. Mr S. is obviously, talking about the Millwall fan rather than the killer of Jo Cox. He was also clearly replying to this post... I don't see how he was supposed to know that you had changed the subject and wanted to talk about the killer of Jo Cox when you said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Quote Actually, it was not clear. Given that Roy Larner hasn't been to court I think it was. Perhaps 'that man" was the unclear bit. Just looks like Mr S subsequently taking the p as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, homarus said: Here's another Wac-ist Brit ! I said it a year or so back , that this guy and others like him will be the ones that the deluded leftists will run to and expect to pull them out of the shite when it all kicks off , even though the pseudo intellectual morons have vilified guys like this as thick as pigshit wac-ist ,xenophobic little Englanders for years ! Why are you calling him a racist? The guy is a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: Given that Roy Larner hasn't been to court I think it was. Perhaps 'that man" was the unclear bit. Just looks like Mr S subsequently taking the p as usual. Don't be pathetic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Thanks Dec old mate. Charming as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 You guys are bigots. Part of living in an Islamic state is dealing with your neighbors waging jihad on sub-sects of Islam in order to establish dominance. Caliph Mayor Khan is a humanitarian and has sectioned off money for government-funded Korans in order to help any infidels understand the new customs they are to be living in. Edit: I shouldn't have to put "Sarcasm" in the edit, but with the level of faggotry in these forums it's for the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I can't decide who is worse, the 5th column or their quislings. Both clearly beyond all reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: So I am correct in that you are really trying to eke out someone else's views rather than his? If so that would seem a trifle duplicitous. I was responding to homarus, asking him who had called Roy Larner racist. For some reason you responded to me, and started talking about somebody else. That only became clear when you mentioned a trial. You being a dumbass is not me being duplicitous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, P.K. said: May cut police funding. We have 20,000 less officers thanks to the stupid bitch thinking we didn't need them. Anyone who thinks she is not culpable in increasing the threat to us all needs to put them on a trowel. Wankers.... fakenews 1 hour ago, P.K. said: May cut police funding. We have 20,000 less officers thanks to the stupid bitch thinking we didn't need them. Anyone who thinks she is not culpable in increasing the threat to us all needs to put them on a trowel. Wankers.... fakenews (you are so thick you have to be told at least twice) 1 hour ago, Max Power said: Increasing the population by ten million over twenty years and cutting security by 20,000 seems a tad silly. fakenews 1 hour ago, ballaughbiker said: Maybe. However in this digital age there's a lot that can be prevented and intercepted by authorities apart from the police. Have they been similarly trimmed? police numbers across the board have been increased, fact..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.