Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LeazesMag

Again

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4756435.stm

 

coming hot on the heels of other twats last week that shouldn't be in the country

 

These dickheads that shouldn't be on our streets, whether they should not be in the country or locked up, but are free courtesy of do gooders putting their "rights" before the safety of the general public..........seems to be becoming a bit more frequent lately ??? Do you agree ? Or do you think its all alright because we have a duty to be the arseholes of the world and the only daft cunts to take them in, or let them out of jail and the good kickings they deserve ?

Edited by LeazesMag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

Heard about both the stories and in all honesty both made me wonder what the fuck is going on in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That one about the hijackers is quite incredible.

134783[/snapback]

 

Should be pointed out it is the fault of the legal system, not the govenment. Hopefully it will be sorted out, anyone that agrees with that decision is insane.

 

Edit: Oops, the article does point that out. I'm not having a godd day. :razz:

Edited by Renton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That one about the hijackers is quite incredible.

134783[/snapback]

 

Should be pointed out it is the fault of the legal system, not the govenment. Hopefully it will be sorted out, anyone that agrees with that decision is insane.

 

Edit: Oops, the article does point that out. I'm not having a godd day. ;)

134816[/snapback]

 

Not while the Prime Ministers wife defends the fuckers in court....

 

Directly opposing her own husbands official public statements to "sort it out"..

 

The cow should stay out of these sort of cases, and he should start being a man and telling her to get back to the kitchen sink

Edited by LeazesMag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That one about the hijackers is quite incredible.

134783[/snapback]

 

Should be pointed out it is the fault of the legal system, not the govenment. Hopefully it will be sorted out, anyone that agrees with that decision is insane.

 

Edit: Oops, the article does point that out. I'm not having a godd day. ;)

134816[/snapback]

 

Not while the Prime Ministers wife defends the fuckers in court....

 

Directly opposing her own husbands official public statements to "sort it out"..

 

The cow should stay out of these sort of cases, and he should start being a man and telling her to get back to the kitchen sink

134872[/snapback]

 

There's a conflict of interest there, I agree. And she does seem to wear the trousers to an extent (she earns a lot more than him, for instance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That one about the hijackers is quite incredible.

134783[/snapback]

 

Should be pointed out it is the fault of the legal system, not the govenment. Hopefully it will be sorted out, anyone that agrees with that decision is insane.

 

Edit: Oops, the article does point that out. I'm not having a godd day. ;)

134816[/snapback]

 

Not while the Prime Ministers wife defends the fuckers in court....

 

Directly opposing her own husbands official public statements to "sort it out"..

 

The cow should stay out of these sort of cases, and he should start being a man and telling her to get back to the kitchen sink

134872[/snapback]

 

There's a conflict of interest there, I agree. And she does seem to wear the trousers to an extent (she earns a lot more than him, for instance).

134876[/snapback]

 

I'm absolutely amazed how the press haven't cottoned onto the substance of some of her court cases yet

 

The answer of course is that Tony must agree with her, despite telling us he doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
That one about the hijackers is quite incredible.

134783[/snapback]

 

Should be pointed out it is the fault of the legal system, not the govenment. Hopefully it will be sorted out, anyone that agrees with that decision is insane.

 

Edit: Oops, the article does point that out. I'm not having a godd day. ;)

134816[/snapback]

 

Not while the Prime Ministers wife defends the fuckers in court....

 

Directly opposing her own husbands official public statements to "sort it out"..

 

The cow should stay out of these sort of cases, and he should start being a man and telling her to get back to the kitchen sink

134872[/snapback]

Was Cherie Blair defending these hijackers like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That one about the hijackers is quite incredible.

134783[/snapback]

 

Should be pointed out it is the fault of the legal system, not the govenment. Hopefully it will be sorted out, anyone that agrees with that decision is insane.

 

Edit: Oops, the article does point that out. I'm not having a godd day. ;)

134816[/snapback]

 

Not while the Prime Ministers wife defends the fuckers in court....

 

Directly opposing her own husbands official public statements to "sort it out"..

 

The cow should stay out of these sort of cases, and he should start being a man and telling her to get back to the kitchen sink

134872[/snapback]

Was Cherie Blair defending these hijackers like?

134881[/snapback]

 

I don't know, but she defends some cases like this, and even one of these politically rooted cases is too many for someone who is the wife of the PM IMO. It's a conflict of interest, or an area where she should not be seen to be active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

I can think of her defending that lass who wouldn't wear her school uniform off the top of my head. I thought that was a sickening case of pandering to (perceived) Muslim sensibilities at the height of the controversy over the Government allegedly deliberately misleading the public over the reasons for going to war against Iraq. As well as being a ridiculous waste of money.

However, if you’re trying to equate that to defending a bunch of hijackers (which she didn’t do, it would appear) you’re making a ridiculous link in my view. Unless there’s another case involving the Prime Minister’s wife you’re thinking of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can think of her defending that lass who wouldn't wear her school uniform off the top of my head. I thought that was a sickening case of pandering to (perceived) Muslim sensibilities at the height of the controversy over the Government allegedly deliberately misleading the public over the reasons for going to war against Iraq. As well as being a ridiculous waste of money.

However, if you’re trying to equate that to defending a bunch of hijackers (which she didn’t do, it would appear) you’re making a ridiculous link in my view. Unless there’s another case involving the Prime Minister’s wife you’re thinking of.

134897[/snapback]

 

i'm not linking anything. It's highly likely the schoolgirl girl was her highest profile, or one of her highest profile, cases. She is a specialist human rights barrister though. Read into that what you will, but I think she should not take on these cases that are politically rooted when her husband is PM.

 

The fact that I would to shoot all those who do take them on anyway, or kick them out to save the taxpayers money, doesn't come into it at all ;)

 

And she's an ugly cow.

 

You're point about pandering to muslim tendencies is correct Alex. There is too much of this going on, and it is getting worse. I am glad you - and others - are finally realising this, as myself and others have been pointing it out for quite a while. Better late then never, although it is now very late.

Edited by LeazesMag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
That one about the hijackers is quite incredible.

134783[/snapback]

 

Should be pointed out it is the fault of the legal system, not the govenment. Hopefully it will be sorted out, anyone that agrees with that decision is insane.

 

Edit: Oops, the article does point that out. I'm not having a godd day. ;)

134816[/snapback]

 

Not while the Prime Ministers wife defends the fuckers in court....

 

Directly opposing her own husbands official public statements to "sort it out"..

 

The cow should stay out of these sort of cases, and he should start being a man and telling her to get back to the kitchen sink

134872[/snapback]

TBH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

Also, my point (which you missed) was about perceived Muslim sensibilities. I doubt the majority of Muslims in this country supported the case of that school girl since the school's uniform was actually approved by the Muslim Council of Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, my point (which you missed) was about perceived Muslim sensibilities. I doubt the majority of Muslims in this country supported the case of that school girl since the school's uniform was actually approved by the Muslim Council of Britain.

134939[/snapback]

 

The Muslim Council of Great Britain may have made a statement saying that the Muslim Council of Great Britain agreed with this, as a body.

 

But it doesn't mean they themselves personally agree. Nor does it mean the majority of muslims agree or disagree with it.

 

Simple fact is this was an action taken by an individual, and should be dealt with as an individual, so whatever the Muslim Council of GB think, approve of, or disapprove of, doesn't matter a jot.

 

Out she goes, she had her chance, and fluffed it. If they don't like our rules, fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
Also, my point (which you missed) was about perceived Muslim sensibilities. I doubt the majority of Muslims in this country supported the case of that school girl since the school's uniform was actually approved by the Muslim Council of Britain.

134939[/snapback]

 

The Muslim Council of Great Britain may have made a statement saying that the Muslim Council of Great Britain agreed with this, as a body.

 

But it doesn't mean they themselves personally agree. Nor does it mean the majority of muslims agree or disagree with it.

 

Simple fact is this was an action taken by an individual, and should be dealt with as an individual, so whatever the Muslim Council of GB think, approve of, or disapprove of, doesn't matter a jot.

 

Out she goes, she had her chance, and fluffed it. If they don't like our rules, fuck off.

134966[/snapback]

I'm assuming it's the case that most Muslims wouldn't have supported the case as there were a lot of Muslims went to school and they didn't seem to have a problem with the uniform (nor did the Muslim headteacher). I'd like to know where you'd suggest she should fuck off to, out of interest, given she was born here. Perhaps you'd like to justify why you've clearly linked (in the posts above) this case with the (completely unrelated) case of the hijackers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

I totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

It didn't need to go to court at all. Even ignoring the fact the muslim council had already aproved the uniform with regards to their religion the simple fact is a school can decide on its choice of uniform and you either abide by their rules and remain at the school or you ignore their rules and leave the school.

 

You don't need all the time, effort and expense to taxpayers of a court case because one girl doesn't like her school uniform. You give her a simple choice follow the rules and go to the school, or leave the school and stop moaning about it.

 

My school uniform included a tie, at no point would i expect to be able to take the school to court because i didn't like wearing one, i accepted their rules. And just because her argument was about religion doesn't make it any more valid whatsoever than mine whether she likes it or not. Religion can't (or shouldn't) be grounds to pick what you do and don't like about rules and regulations made by the state and fortunately the court agreed with this on this occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

It didn't need to go to court at all. Even ignoring the fact the muslim council had already aproved the uniform with regards to their religion the simple fact is a school can decide on its choice of uniform and you either abide by their rules and remain at the school or you ignore their rules and leave the school.

 

You don't need all the time, effort and expense to taxpayers of a court case because one girl doesn't like her school uniform. You give her a simple choice follow the rules and go to the school, or leave the school and stop moaning about it.

 

My school uniform included a tie, at no point would i expect to be able to take the school to court because i didn't like wearing one, i accepted their rules. And just because her argument was about religion doesn't make it any more valid whatsoever than mine whether she likes it or not. Religion can't (or shouldn't) be grounds to pick what you do and don't like about rules and regulations made by the state and fortunately the court agreed with this on this occasion.

135018[/snapback]

 

If you want to live in a free soceity you're going to have to accept that people can challenge the interpretation of the law. The legal system clarified the last sentence of your post, and now a precedent has been set it can't happen again. It was a price worth paying imo. Or we could just have totalitarianism instead to save a few quid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cow should stay out of these sort of cases, and he should start being a man and telling her to get back to the kitchen sink

 

...

 

I don't know, but she defends some cases like this, and even one of these politically rooted cases is too many for someone who is the wife of the PM IMO. It's a conflict of interest, or an area where she should not be seen to be active.

 

134872[/snapback]

 

;)

 

LM's bait failed to entice anything but sprats so he threw in a one of his brightest lures that no fish could resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

It didn't need to go to court at all. Even ignoring the fact the muslim council had already aproved the uniform with regards to their religion the simple fact is a school can decide on its choice of uniform and you either abide by their rules and remain at the school or you ignore their rules and leave the school.

 

You don't need all the time, effort and expense to taxpayers of a court case because one girl doesn't like her school uniform. You give her a simple choice follow the rules and go to the school, or leave the school and stop moaning about it.

 

My school uniform included a tie, at no point would i expect to be able to take the school to court because i didn't like wearing one, i accepted their rules. And just because her argument was about religion doesn't make it any more valid whatsoever than mine whether she likes it or not. Religion can't (or shouldn't) be grounds to pick what you do and don't like about rules and regulations made by the state and fortunately the court agreed with this on this occasion.

135018[/snapback]

 

If you want to live in a free soceity you're going to have to accept that people can challenge the interpretation of the law. The legal system clarified the last sentence of your post, and now a precedent has been set it can't happen again. It was a price worth paying imo. Or we could just have totalitarianism instead to save a few quid.

135028[/snapback]

 

A fair point you've made there, though do you really think that will be the last and you won't see a very similar case or cases in the future allowed to go to court, i supect there will be.

 

My main problem with it is probably the religous angle. Whatever religion it is people should never be allowed to use it to challenge the law as other people subscribe to different religions or no religion at all. And religion is nothing but unproven/unprovable faith and belief and why the hell should that allow you to dicate (or attempt to dicate) laws other people may have to follow when they share none of your unproven beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

It didn't need to go to court at all. Even ignoring the fact the muslim council had already aproved the uniform with regards to their religion the simple fact is a school can decide on its choice of uniform and you either abide by their rules and remain at the school or you ignore their rules and leave the school.

 

You don't need all the time, effort and expense to taxpayers of a court case because one girl doesn't like her school uniform. You give her a simple choice follow the rules and go to the school, or leave the school and stop moaning about it.

 

My school uniform included a tie, at no point would i expect to be able to take the school to court because i didn't like wearing one, i accepted their rules. And just because her argument was about religion doesn't make it any more valid whatsoever than mine whether she likes it or not. Religion can't (or shouldn't) be grounds to pick what you do and don't like about rules and regulations made by the state and fortunately the court agreed with this on this occasion.

135018[/snapback]

 

If you want to live in a free soceity you're going to have to accept that people can challenge the interpretation of the law. The legal system clarified the last sentence of your post, and now a precedent has been set it can't happen again. It was a price worth paying imo. Or we could just have totalitarianism instead to save a few quid.

135028[/snapback]

 

A fair point you've made there, though do you really think that will be the last and you won't see a very similar case or cases in the future allowed to go to court, i supect there will be.

 

My main problem with it is probably the religous angle. Whatever religion it is people should never be allowed to use it to challenge the law as other people subscribe to different religions or no religion at all. And religion is nothing but unproven/unprovable faith and belief and why the hell should that allow you to dicate (or attempt to dicate) laws other people may have to follow when they share none of your unproven beliefs.

135033[/snapback]

 

 

I agree comletely. Of course, this government is making matters worth with their support of faith schools, and even allowing a member of opus dei to be minister for equality! Jesus wept!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was necessary for that case to go the court. It did, the right decision was made, and the precedent has been set. Where's the problem?

 

However, with this hijacking case the wrong precedent has certainly be set. The people that made that decision should be ashamed. Hopefully, it'll be overturned.

134973[/snapback]

 

It didn't need to go to court at all. Even ignoring the fact the muslim council had already aproved the uniform with regards to their religion the simple fact is a school can decide on its choice of uniform and you either abide by their rules and remain at the school or you ignore their rules and leave the school.

 

You don't need all the time, effort and expense to taxpayers of a court case because one girl doesn't like her school uniform. You give her a simple choice follow the rules and go to the school, or leave the school and stop moaning about it.

 

My school uniform included a tie, at no point would i expect to be able to take the school to court because i didn't like wearing one, i accepted their rules. And just because her argument was about religion doesn't make it any more valid whatsoever than mine whether she likes it or not. Religion can't (or shouldn't) be grounds to pick what you do and don't like about rules and regulations made by the state and fortunately the court agreed with this on this occasion.

135018[/snapback]

 

If you want to live in a free soceity you're going to have to accept that people can challenge the interpretation of the law. The legal system clarified the last sentence of your post, and now a precedent has been set it can't happen again. It was a price worth paying imo. Or we could just have totalitarianism instead to save a few quid.

135028[/snapback]

 

A fair point you've made there, though do you really think that will be the last and you won't see a very similar case or cases in the future allowed to go to court, i supect there will be.

 

My main problem with it is probably the religous angle. Whatever religion it is people should never be allowed to use it to challenge the law as other people subscribe to different religions or no religion at all. And religion is nothing but unproven/unprovable faith and belief and why the hell should that allow you to dicate (or attempt to dicate) laws other people may have to follow when they share none of your unproven beliefs.

135033[/snapback]

 

 

I agree comletely. Of course, this government is making matters worth with their support of faith schools, and even allowing a member of opus dei to be minister for equality! Jesus wept!

135040[/snapback]

 

That is a disgrace, expecting a fanatical/devout catholic extremist to be fair to gays and lesbians who she sees as sinners and against god. And in a recent interview she twice turned down the chance to state she doesn't think they are sinners, which is a blatant statement she does have a problem with them because she would have said she didn't if that were the case.

 

Of course aside from religion how does she (and other cabinet minsisters) walk into another important and highly paid job when they've show themselves to be incompitent fuckwitts in their last job!!!

 

If i fucked up in my job on a massive scale the last thing i'd expect would be to get another job of similar standing on the same money, i'd expect to be sacked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×