|
FFS
May 23, 2023 18:40:03 GMT
Post by jonksy on May 23, 2023 18:40:03 GMT
Does the name Shamima Begum ring any bells dead nag? I did not, as well you know, support Shamima Begum, I believe she should be brought back to this country and stand trial, but why worry about that when a good lie is better.😔 Total bollox dead nag. You could at least do all the rest of us the honour of remebering your own BS.
|
|
|
FFS
May 23, 2023 18:43:02 GMT
jonksy likes this
Post by Bentley on May 23, 2023 18:43:02 GMT
You were the one to migrate from a deliberate blocking of traffic to a queue . That didn’t take long either 😁 If you recall, and it was not long ago, I said "no one was assaulted" but of course you had to extend that to forcibly moving people out of the way. If you recall you posted ‘There was a long queue at Tesco today but no one assault those in the front.’ You posted a false comparison. My comparison was a reasonable one .
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 23, 2023 18:52:09 GMT
Absolutely 'assault'.
Civilisation can't run if people deliberately block up infrastructure.
If people can be forced to pay taxes to create that infrastructure, they can be forced not to block it up so others can't use it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 5:50:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 5:50:15 GMT
I did not, as well you know, support Shamima Begum, I believe she should be brought back to this country and stand trial, but why worry about that when a good lie is better.😔 Total bollox dead nag. You could at least do all the rest of us the honour of remebering your own BS. Oh, I was mistaken, you still can't spell.🤣
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 5:54:49 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 5:54:49 GMT
If you recall, and it was not long ago, I said "no one was assaulted" but of course you had to extend that to forcibly moving people out of the way. If you recall you posted ‘There was a long queue at Tesco today but no one assault those in the front.’ You posted a false comparison. My comparison was a reasonable one . Mine example was perfectly reasonable. What you are advocating is that if someone gets in the way of others going about their business in good order and time then violence is an acceptable path for those that are being 'inconvenienced', I was setting out a scenario whence that does not happen. First they came for the protestors but I was not one of them so I did not defend their rights. Then they came.............
|
|
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 5:56:30 GMT
Post by Toreador on May 24, 2023 5:56:30 GMT
If you recall you posted ‘There was a long queue at Tesco today but no one assault those in the front.’ You posted a false comparison. My comparison was a reasonable one . Mine example was perfectly reasonable. What you are advocating is that if someone gets in the way of others going about their business in good order and time then violence is an acceptable path for those that are being 'inconvenienced', I was setting out a scenario whence that does not happen. First they came for the protestors but I was not one of them so I did not defend their rights. Then they came............. Another nonsense analogy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 5:57:08 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 5:57:08 GMT
Absolutely 'assault'. Civilisation can't run if people deliberately block up infrastructure. If people can be forced to pay taxes to create that infrastructure, they can be forced not to block it up so others can't use it. Civilisation can't run if people attack people for 'inconveniencing' others, we all do it. If people can 'legally avoid' paying taxes then we should all be allowed do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 5:57:51 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 5:57:51 GMT
Mine example was perfectly reasonable. What you are advocating is that if someone gets in the way of others going about their business in good order and time then violence is an acceptable path for those that are being 'inconvenienced', I was setting out a scenario whence that does not happen. First they came for the protestors but I was not one of them so I did not defend their rights. Then they came............. Another nonsense analogy. You deny advocating violence, which in itself is a criminal act.
|
|
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 6:10:28 GMT
jonksy likes this
Post by Toreador on May 24, 2023 6:10:28 GMT
Another nonsense analogy. You deny advocating violence, which in itself is a criminal act. Just more nonsense.
|
|
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 6:26:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by jonksy on May 24, 2023 6:26:48 GMT
Total bollox dead nag. You could at least do all the rest of us the honour of remebering your own BS. Oh, I was mistaken, you still can't spell.🤣 Pillock
|
|
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 6:35:16 GMT
jonksy likes this
Post by Toreador on May 24, 2023 6:35:16 GMT
Oh, I was mistaken, you still can't spell.🤣 Pillock I doubt there's any chance of convincing him you are right no matter how many times you say it.
|
|
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 6:46:27 GMT
Post by Orac on May 24, 2023 6:46:27 GMT
Absolutely 'assault'. Civilisation can't run if people deliberately block up infrastructure. If people can be forced to pay taxes to create that infrastructure, they can be forced not to block it up so others can't use it. Civilisation can't run if people attack people for 'inconveniencing' others, we all do it. If people can 'legally avoid' paying taxes then we should all be allowed do it. This is incorrect - civilisation is partly the convention that you don't deliberately inconvenience other people - for instance, deliberately blocking their travel on a road or standing blocking them in a doorway they have a right to use. If someone does do this and refuses to desist then civilisation demands violence to get the victim's lost rights back. The roads are being built by taxes that are not avoided and so it's clear not all taxes are avoided
|
|
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 6:52:22 GMT
Post by Pacifico on May 24, 2023 6:52:22 GMT
Absolutely 'assault'. Civilisation can't run if people deliberately block up infrastructure. If people can be forced to pay taxes to create that infrastructure, they can be forced not to block it up so others can't use it. Civilisation can't run if people attack people for 'inconveniencing' others, we all do it. If people can 'legally avoid' paying taxes then we should all be allowed do it.we are..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 7:26:17 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 7:26:17 GMT
Civilisation can't run if people attack people for 'inconveniencing' others, we all do it. If people can 'legally avoid' paying taxes then we should all be allowed do it. This is incorrect - civilisation is partly the convention that you don't deliberately inconvenience other people - for instance, deliberately blocking their travel on a road or standing blocking them in a doorway they have a right to use. If someone does do this and refuses to desist then civilisation demands violence to get the victim's lost rights back. The roads are being built by taxes that are not avoided and so it's clear not all taxes are avoided You do know that 'all roads lead to Rome' don't you? The 'inconvenience' people like you talk about is very minor and affects very few people but the Tories want you to believe that it widespread and 'ordinary people should 'do something' about it, culture wars they love it it keeps us occupied. 'Civilisation demands violence' is something only a moron would believe when faced with minor inconvenience and it is illegal. "The roads are being built by taxes that are not avoided and so it's clear not all taxes are avoided" but some, by your own words, are so why should we not all avoid paying?
|
|
|
FFS
May 24, 2023 7:48:51 GMT
Post by Fairsociety on May 24, 2023 7:48:51 GMT
This is incorrect - civilisation is partly the convention that you don't deliberately inconvenience other people - for instance, deliberately blocking their travel on a road or standing blocking them in a doorway they have a right to use. If someone does do this and refuses to desist then civilisation demands violence to get the victim's lost rights back. The roads are being built by taxes that are not avoided and so it's clear not all taxes are avoided You do know that 'all roads lead to Rome' don't you? The 'inconvenience' people like you talk about is very minor and affects very few people but the Tories want you to believe that it widespread and 'ordinary people should 'do something' about it, culture wars they love it it keeps us occupied. 'Civilisation demands violence' is something only a moron would believe when faced with minor inconvenience and it is illegal. "The roads are being built by taxes that are not avoided and so it's clear not all taxes are avoided" but some, by your own words, are so why should we not all avoid paying? The tax payers fund the National Highways which is part of the Department of Transport, we also fund the police, and here we have the tax payers being obstructed from using roads that they fund, by the illegal activity of protesters, and to rub salt in to the wound the police who they also fund are standing by and doing nothing, the public can legally fight back.
Sue the council for emotional distress
You can seek compensation from your council for stress, anxiety and other forms of recognised psychological injuries. The second is special damages. When suing a council for negligence you will be able to seek compensation to address any financial impact.
1. Yes, it has caused you stress, anxiety and other forms of recognised psychological injuries, when you are illegal stopped from going about your daily business, or hospital appointments.
2. Yes, you want compensating for the financial loss, by not being able to legally carry out your daily business because of illegal activity.
Start suing the councils we'll soon see and end to these protesters.
|
|