|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 11:42:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Dec 8, 2014 11:42:25 GMT -5
Thank you for your Googling and copy/pasting on Ranger John's behalf. However, I am sorry because you either missed my point or didn't understand it. There has not been one British law that has been changed or usurped by sharia law that affects a British subject. Any sharia law/clause has no validity if the subject does not accept it, unless of course the subject has contravened an existing or established law. We've been here before vosa, you can Google until you are blue in the face, sharia has not yet usurped or changed the British Law of the Land for any British subject who does not accept it. I doubt your sincerity. But then you've never been a sincere person have you? You're obsession with Googling and copying & pasting is a classic example of the triumph of form over substance. Your devotion to ignorance is a very sad story. I sorta would have thought UK law enforcement aiding and abetting more than a decade's worth of Islamic rape and pedophilia in Rotherham in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims would be all the evidence one needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 12:00:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 12:00:46 GMT -5
I doubt your sincerity. But then you've never been a sincere person have you? You're obsession with Googling and copying & pasting is a classic example of the triumph of form over substance. Your devotion to ignorance is a very sad story. I sorta would have thought UK law enforcement aiding and abetting more than a decade's worth of Islamic rape and pedophilia in Rotherham in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims would be all the evidence one needed. Aiding and abetting a crime is a criminal act, if you know of such a case you should report it to the correct authority.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 12:39:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Dec 8, 2014 12:39:08 GMT -5
I sorta would have thought UK law enforcement aiding and abetting more than a decade's worth of Islamic rape and pedophilia in Rotherham in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims would be all the evidence one needed. Aiding and abetting a crime is a criminal act, if you know of such a case you should report it to the correct authority. The sexual enslavement of thousands of young girls at the hands of a nest of sub-human Islamic vermin while the authorities failed to enforce UK law in favor of the vermin's Sharia has been well established. The fact that the local authorities failed to do their duty in order to avoid offending their Islamic over-lords has also been well established. Reporting it to the only authority with any power in Rotheram - the local Imams - seems counter productive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 13:12:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 13:12:38 GMT -5
Aiding and abetting a crime is a criminal act, if you know of such a case you should report it to the correct authority. The sexual enslavement of thousands of young girls at the hands of a nest of sub-human Islamic vermin while the authorities failed to enforce UK law in favor of the vermin's Sharia has been well established. The fact that the local authorities failed to do their duty in order to avoid offending their Islamic over-lords has also been well established. Reporting it to the only authority with any power in Rotheram - the local Imams - seems counter productive. Then report it to a higher authority, outside of Lancashire would be favourite. And by the way "the local imams" do not control the ongoings in Rotherham.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 13:13:56 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 8, 2014 13:13:56 GMT -5
Not when one can be judged by Shari'a. That means that Shari'a has displaced British law anywhere it's used in place of that law. What is happening is that Muslims are setting up separate, and equal, fiefdoms within Britain. How long before your government succumbs to the demands by Muslims that only Shari'a be allowed within their enclaves? That they are not subject to British law? That is the most idiotic statement. Unless you can specifically point to a case where sharia law has been applied above the British law of the land you are just being incredibly stupid and obtuse. You really should grow up if you want to try and debate with the ones that do know what they are talking about. Yep, a most incredibly stupid statement indeed. No, you are the one being obtuse. If anyone is judged, adjudicated, or has his inheritance remitted under Shari'a, instead of British law, then the pertinent British laws have been usurped. You are setting up parallel legal systems, and Shari'a will overtake and replace British law, probably within the next 10 years. Unless UKIP can stop it.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 13:15:35 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 8, 2014 13:15:35 GMT -5
The sexual enslavement of thousands of young girls at the hands of a nest of sub-human Islamic vermin while the authorities failed to enforce UK law in favor of the vermin's Sharia has been well established. The fact that the local authorities failed to do their duty in order to avoid offending their Islamic over-lords has also been well established. Reporting it to the only authority with any power in Rotheram - the local Imams - seems counter productive. Then report it to a higher authority, outside of Lancashire would be favourite. And by the way "the local imams" do not control the ongoings in Rotherham. Evidently, they do. Or did, until the story broke. According to reports, the raping went on for years, and the authorities there knew about it, but did nothing for fear of being called "racist", "anti Muslim", or because they were afraid to find their spouses beheaded when they got home.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 13:24:11 GMT -5
Post by winston on Dec 8, 2014 13:24:11 GMT -5
Not when one can be judged by Shari'a. That means that Shari'a has displaced British law anywhere it's used in place of that law. What is happening is that Muslims are setting up separate, and equal, fiefdoms within Britain. How long before your government succumbs to the demands by Muslims that only Shari'a be allowed within their enclaves? That they are not subject to British law? That is the most idiotic statement. Unless you can specifically point to a case where sharia law has been applied above the British law of the land you are just being incredibly stupid and obtuse. You really should grow up if you want to try and debate with the ones that do know what they are talking about. Yep, a most incredibly stupid statement indeed. most of his postings are idotic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 13:26:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 13:26:28 GMT -5
That is the most idiotic statement. Unless you can specifically point to a case where sharia law has been applied above the British law of the land you are just being incredibly stupid and obtuse. You really should grow up if you want to try and debate with the ones that do know what they are talking about. Yep, a most incredibly stupid statement indeed. No, you are the one being obtuse. If anyone is judged, adjudicated, or has his inheritance remitted under Shari'a, instead of British law, then the pertinent British laws have been usurped. You are setting up parallel legal systems, and Shari'a will overtake and replace British law, probably within the next 10 years. Unless UKIP can stop it. Such stupidity on display here. Inheritance has nothing to do with the law, a Brit can leave their money and assets to anyone or anything that they choose. Seriously dude, stop making an arse of yourself, ignorance is one thing stupidity is another, IMO, you are displaying both.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 14:25:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Dec 8, 2014 14:25:50 GMT -5
The sexual enslavement of thousands of young girls at the hands of a nest of sub-human Islamic vermin while the authorities failed to enforce UK law in favor of the vermin's Sharia has been well established. The fact that the local authorities failed to do their duty in order to avoid offending their Islamic over-lords has also been well established. Reporting it to the only authority with any power in Rotheram - the local Imams - seems counter productive. Then report it to a higher authority, outside of Lancashire would be favourite. And by the way "the local imams" do not control the ongoings in Rotherham. Reality begs to differ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 14:48:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 14:48:02 GMT -5
Then report it to a higher authority, outside of Lancashire would be favourite. And by the way "the local imams" do not control the ongoings in Rotherham. Reality begs to differ. I'm a bit closer to reality than you are and I can tell you that it doesn't.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 14:56:17 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 8, 2014 14:56:17 GMT -5
Indeed, and some 'academies have been closed down for doing or attempting to do just that. Like redleg and Co, you need to read further and not just that which sates your xenophobia in general and anglophobia in particular. I think you're ate up with the phobias, perhaps a walk in the country.......... if you have any. Lions and tigers and bears..... Oh my!
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 14:57:39 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 8, 2014 14:57:39 GMT -5
That is the most idiotic statement. Unless you can specifically point to a case where sharia law has been applied above the British law of the land you are just being incredibly stupid and obtuse. You really should grow up if you want to try and debate with the ones that do know what they are talking about. Yep, a most incredibly stupid statement indeed. most of his postings are idotic What does "idotic" mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 15:02:07 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 15:02:07 GMT -5
most of his postings are idotic What does "idotic" mean? It means that you, or one of your oppo's, can't report his post to the mods.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 15:10:53 GMT -5
Post by vosa on Dec 8, 2014 15:10:53 GMT -5
I'm a bit closer to reality than you are and I can tell you that it doesn't. I have incontrovertible proof that everything Ranger John and Redleg said is correct. How would you suggest I present it?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 15:22:23 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 8, 2014 15:22:23 GMT -5
What does "idotic" mean? It means that you, or one of your oppo's, can't report his post to the mods. Why would I want to be a sniveling lil girl running to the mods?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 15:34:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Dec 8, 2014 15:34:57 GMT -5
I'm a bit closer to reality than you are and I can tell you that it doesn't. Then, by all means, tell me what I got wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 15:36:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 15:36:02 GMT -5
I'm a bit closer to reality than you are and I can tell you that it doesn't. I have incontrovertible proof that everything Ranger John and Redleg said is correct. How would you suggest I present it? With tongue in cheek would probably be your best option.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 15:39:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Dec 8, 2014 15:39:00 GMT -5
I have incontrovertible proof that everything Ranger John and Redleg said is correct. How would you suggest I present it? With tongue in cheek would probably be your best option. I'm appalled, but not at all shocked, that you think what happened to those girls in Rotherham is something to be discussed "tongue in cheek."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 15:51:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 15:51:41 GMT -5
With tongue in cheek would probably be your best option. I'm appalled, but not at all shocked, that you think what happened to those girls in Rotherham is something to be discussed "tongue in cheek." Ah, the old shuffle dodge, while trying to demean my character. You know full well that I was referring to vosa's ridiculous claim that he had "incontrovertible proof" that everything you said was correct. Are you guys working as team to try to force through your lies? I am well aware of the happenings in Rotherham and of the local authorities poor handling of the problem. However, your claim that they were complicit by "aiding and abetting" the Muslims is absolutely outrageous. If and when you feel like debating this problem honestly, try again with a more reasoned argument. Until then, I will waste no further time attempting to correct your or your oppo's ignorance.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 16:51:02 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 8, 2014 16:51:02 GMT -5
I'm appalled, but not at all shocked, that you think what happened to those girls in Rotherham is something to be discussed "tongue in cheek." Ah, the old shuffle dodge, while trying to demean my character. You know full well that I was referring to vosa's ridiculous claim that he had "incontrovertible proof" that everything you said was correct. Are you guys working as team to try to force through your lies? I am well aware of the happenings in Rotherham and of the local authorities poor handling of the problem. However, your claim that they were complicit by "aiding and abetting" the Muslims is absolutely outrageous. If and when you feel like debating this problem honestly, try again with a more reasoned argument. Until then, I will waste no further time attempting to correct your or your oppo's ignorance.Surrendered so soon, French this week?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 17:01:48 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Dec 8, 2014 17:01:48 GMT -5
I'm appalled, but not at all shocked, that you think what happened to those girls in Rotherham is something to be discussed "tongue in cheek." Ah, the old shuffle dodge, while trying to demean my character. You know full well that I was referring to vosa's ridiculous claim that he had "incontrovertible proof" that everything you said was correct. Are you guys working as team to try to force through your lies? I am well aware of the happenings in Rotherham and of the local authorities poor handling of the problem. However, your claim that they were complicit by "aiding and abetting" the Muslims is absolutely outrageous. If and when you feel like debating this problem honestly, try again with a more reasoned argument. Until then, I will waste no further time attempting to correct your or your oppo's ignorance. Oh. I see. So official refusal to investigate credible claims of wide-scale sex trafficking of young girls because of the perpetrator's religion isn't aiding and abetting the criminals? It's just "poor handling of the problem"? I mean, how ridiculously naive do you have to be to think Sharia hasn't taken hold in the UK? Were that it wasn't so, but it has - largely thanks to the insane theories of political correctness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 17:37:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 17:37:49 GMT -5
Ah, the old shuffle dodge, while trying to demean my character. You know full well that I was referring to vosa's ridiculous claim that he had "incontrovertible proof" that everything you said was correct. Are you guys working as team to try to force through your lies? I am well aware of the happenings in Rotherham and of the local authorities poor handling of the problem. However, your claim that they were complicit by "aiding and abetting" the Muslims is absolutely outrageous. If and when you feel like debating this problem honestly, try again with a more reasoned argument. Until then, I will waste no further time attempting to correct your or your oppo's ignorance.Surrendered so soon, French this week? Another idiotic post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 17:47:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 17:47:18 GMT -5
Ah, the old shuffle dodge, while trying to demean my character. You know full well that I was referring to vosa's ridiculous claim that he had "incontrovertible proof" that everything you said was correct. Are you guys working as team to try to force through your lies? I am well aware of the happenings in Rotherham and of the local authorities poor handling of the problem. However, your claim that they were complicit by "aiding and abetting" the Muslims is absolutely outrageous. If and when you feel like debating this problem honestly, try again with a more reasoned argument. Until then, I will waste no further time attempting to correct your or your oppo's ignorance. Oh. I see. So official refusal to investigate credible claims of wide-scale sex trafficking of young girls because of the perpetrator's religion isn't aiding and abetting the criminals? It's just "poor handling of the problem"? I mean, how ridiculously naive do you have to be to think Sharia hasn't taken hold in the UK? Were that it wasn't so, but it has - largely thanks to the insane theories of political correctness. Naive? I've spent time in Rotherham, have you? Your knowledge base comes from crap daily's that are just about useful for wiping ones arse, my knowledge comes from visiting the place and more reasonable media reporting. I am not suggesting for one moment that there hasn't been a problem in Rotherham, and other in my opinion worse cases elsewhere. Those problems are being addressed very firmly, you of course, wouldn't know about that, simply because you don't want to. Naivety? That would be your believing everything that you read from trash daily's.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 17:58:06 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Dec 8, 2014 17:58:06 GMT -5
Oh. I see. So official refusal to investigate credible claims of wide-scale sex trafficking of young girls because of the perpetrator's religion isn't aiding and abetting the criminals? It's just "poor handling of the problem"? I mean, how ridiculously naive do you have to be to think Sharia hasn't taken hold in the UK? Were that it wasn't so, but it has - largely thanks to the insane theories of political correctness. Naive? I've spent time in Rotherham, have you? Your knowledge base comes from crap daily's that are just about useful for wiping ones arse, my knowledge comes from visiting the place and more reasonable media reporting. I am not suggesting for one moment that there hasn't been a problem in Rotherham, and other in my opinion worse cases elsewhere. Those problems are being addressed very firmly, you of course, wouldn't know about that, simply because you don't want to. Naivety? That would be your believing everything that you read from trash daily's. You know I used to work in Washington DC. I've been to Anacostia, and even (briefly) worked in some of the worst neighborhoods in South East DC. Yet, oddly, just having been there didn't provide me any special insight on inner-city drug gangs. In order to get any special insight, I'd need to be either a member of the DC Metro PD, or the Crips. So I find it more than a bit ridiculous that you're claiming special knowledge of the Pakistani child sex-slave rings in Rotherham because you've been there. Unless you were there as a member of the local police department... or a Pakistani pedophile... or a teenage sex slave.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 8, 2014 18:11:15 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 8, 2014 18:11:15 GMT -5
Surrendered so soon, French this week? Another idiotic post. Very good, unlike your pet whatever he is you spelled it correctly. Nice that I have a stalker. sit boy, sit!
|
|