|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 12:43:16 GMT
It's proof that he permitted it not endorsed it. We agree do we not that they aren't necessarily the same thing? Do you think Khan was wrong to permit the Khan balloon? Tell you what, if Harris becomes the next US President we'll make a Harris Giant Baby balloon with a dummy in her mouth ..... Khan would have it instantly stopped on the grounds of racism and offensive to a US President, 100% guaranteed ... and that's the difference. Khan permitted a Khan balloon, we'd have to wait and see RE: Harris. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 12:51:28 GMT
So you are happy for me to insist on irrefutable proof of anything you post in future ? Don’t run away ..😁 If I make a claim about an action by a third party then yes. I’ll remember that ..irrefutable proof. Anyway it’s obvious that Khan endorsed the insult to a visiting POTUS . By permitting it he was complicit in it . Trump has a long memory and if he is elected , we might regret it . |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 22, 2024 13:03:16 GMT
No - He did not endorse it, a committee within the GLA authorised it, and authorising something is completely different to endorsing something. The protestors had no choice, the inflatable had to be approved by the City Operations Team Does the fact that The Metropolitan Police also granted permission mean that the Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police "endorsed" the inflatable for political reasons too. ? What about caricature's of Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Jeremy Corbyn, The King or the President of China which have often been used in protests. ? Khan as Mayor of London had the authority to cancel the balloon on a number of grounds, health safety, offensive, had he given that instruction to not allow the balloon then the Met would have stopped the balloon and arrested those who did not comply with the order .... why can't you get it? Sometimes your reasoning is incomprehensible The National Air Traffic Service ( NATS ) gave permission for the inflatable, they had no reservations or worries on grounds of safety. OFFENSIVE - As stated previously is not a consideration, and neither should it be There were no Health & Safety concerns There were no grounds for not allowing the inflatable ... why can't you get it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 22, 2024 13:07:11 GMT
Khan as Mayor of London had the authority to cancel the balloon on a number of grounds, health safety, offensive, had he given that instruction to not allow the balloon then the Met would have stopped the balloon and arrested those who did not comply with the order .... why can't you get it? Sometimes your reasoning is incomprehensible The National Air Traffic Service ( NATS ) gave permission for the inflatable, they had no reservations or worries on grounds of safety. OFFENSIVE - As stated previously is not a consideration, and neither should it be There were no Health & Safety concerns There were no grounds for not allowing the inflatable ... why can't you get it ? Don't talk crap, it was health and safety on the ground
1. Distraction for motorists
2. Danger if it exploded and fell to the ground, no guarantee where it would have landed
That's just two reasons for starters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 13:10:16 GMT
Khan as Mayor of London had the authority to cancel the balloon on a number of grounds, health safety, offensive, had he given that instruction to not allow the balloon then the Met would have stopped the balloon and arrested those who did not comply with the order .... why can't you get it? Sometimes your reasoning is incomprehensible The National Air Traffic Service ( NATS ) gave permission for the inflatable, they had no reservations or worries on grounds of safety. OFFENSIVE - As stated previously is not a consideration, and neither should it be There were no Health & Safety concerns There were no grounds for not allowing the inflatable ... why can't you get it ? Do you imagine in your little mind that this would have been allowed to insult the president China ? Xi visited the year before and even demonstrators were cracked down on. There was no grounds for not allowing a crass insult to a visiting head of state from our closest ally .leader of the free world and most powerful country on Earth? None of that means anything to stupid lefties , drunk on the opportunity to insult the man who beat Hilary . |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 13:50:44 GMT
If I make a claim about an action by a third party then yes. I’ll remember that ..irrefutable proof. Anyway it’s obvious that Khan endorsed the insult to a visiting POTUS . By permitting it he was complicit in it . Trump has a long memory and if he is elected , we might regret it . No, permitting something and endorsing something are two different things. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 14:15:09 GMT
I’ll remember that ..irrefutable proof. Anyway it’s obvious that Khan endorsed the insult to a visiting POTUS . By permitting it he was complicit in it . Trump has a long memory and if he is elected , we might regret it . No, permitting something and endorsing something are two different things. Yes,he endorsed it . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 22, 2024 14:24:45 GMT
I’ll remember that ..irrefutable proof. Anyway it’s obvious that Khan endorsed the insult to a visiting POTUS . By permitting it he was complicit in it . Trump has a long memory and if he is elected , we might regret it . No, permitting something and endorsing something are two different things. What! How is allowing or permitting an act to happen, any different from endorsing or agreeing with it? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 22, 2024 14:25:52 GMT
No, permitting something and endorsing something are two different things. Yes,he endorsed it . When? You can show evidence of this? And please try to make arguments without calling people 'morons', 'thick' and 'stupid'. It just undermines your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 22, 2024 14:27:13 GMT
No, permitting something and endorsing something are two different things. What! How is allowing or permitting an act to happen, any different from endorsing or agreeing with it? This has already been explained, why are you asking the same question again? If you're not sure, ChatGPT is your friend. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 14:30:51 GMT
When? You can show evidence of this? And please try to make arguments without calling people 'morons', 'thick' and 'stupid'. It just undermines your posts. Scroll through the previous posts . Why would an accurate description undermine my posts ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 14:33:38 GMT
What! How is allowing or permitting an act to happen, any different from endorsing or agreeing with it? This has already been explained, why are you asking the same question again? If you're not sure, ChatGPT is your friend. No it hasn’t it’s been denied ( in this case )by false comparisons and demands for ‘ irrefutable’ evidence . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 22, 2024 14:35:50 GMT
What! How is allowing or permitting an act to happen, any different from endorsing or agreeing with it? This has already been explained, why are you asking the same question again? If you're not sure, ChatGPT is your friend. Two points: Firstly, I have not asked this question previously so get your facts straight. Secondly, I do not require your permission to ask any question I fuckin well like. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 22, 2024 14:39:06 GMT
What! How is allowing or permitting an act to happen, any different from endorsing or agreeing with it? This has already been explained, why are you asking the same question again? If you're not sure, ChatGPT is your friend. We could say the same to you, why are you asking the same question again, this has already been explained, Khan endorsed the balloon, no matter how much you try to dress it up. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 22, 2024 14:39:59 GMT
I’ll remember that ..irrefutable proof. Anyway it’s obvious that Khan endorsed the insult to a visiting POTUS . By permitting it he was complicit in it . Trump has a long memory and if he is elected , we might regret it . No, permitting something and endorsing something are two different things. I seem to remember the BBC got a lot of criticism from the left for allowing Nick Griffin a platform and complained quite bitterly that permitting him to take part was tantamount to endorsing his views. So it seems it is very subjective and the left, as ever, let their hypocrisy shine through |
|
