O/T I want to come home

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:47 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I'm going to throw this out there, he's probably appealing to people on the left and the right.

He's taking advantage of people's emotional vulnerability in order to gain political capital. Very poor form, but I'd expect nothing less from his ilk.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:48 am

Spijed wrote:Why is it a joke to have legal representation?

It’s not. Who said that ?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:59 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:He's taking advantage of people's emotional vulnerability in order to gain political capital. Very poor form, but I'd expect nothing less from his ilk.

Standard for all politicians then across the spectrum

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:02 am

Blackrod wrote:It’s not. Who said that ?

It seemed like that was what you were saying when you said this:

"The family’s legal representative ( a joke imo) has likened her to a 1st World War soldier...."

So if you weren't saying that the family having legal representation being a joke, what were you saying? It doesn't have to be contentious but it would help is you help us understand what you mean, because it wasn't entirely clear.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:10 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It seemed like that was what you were saying when you said this:

"The family’s legal representative ( a joke imo) has likened her to a 1st World War soldier...."

So if you weren't saying that the family having legal representation being a joke, what were you saying? It doesn't have to be contentious but it would help is you help us understand what you mean, because it wasn't entirely clear.

You're that argumentative you didn't understand that he's saying actual legal rep is a joke, as in the person.

Ah you're hilarious when you're in this mood and simple things like this fly right past you.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:12 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You're that argumentative you didn't understand that he's saying actual legal rep is a joke, as in the person.

Ah you're hilarious when you're in this mood and simple things like this fly right past you.

No, I thought that was what he was saying, but i wanted him to confirm it before I ask him why he thinks the legal rep is a joke.

But thanks for jumping the gun and forming a completely dumb conclusion from the perfectly simple and reasonable question that I asked.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:16 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:No, I thought that was what he was saying, but i wanted him to confirm it before I ask him why he thinks the legal rep is a joke.

But thanks for jumping the gun and forming a completely dumb conclusion from the perfectly simple and reasonable question that I asked.

So your failure to state your opinion on what they said is me jumping the gun?
Despite the fact it's the same as what I've said...

Not even a little bit sunshine.

Again, you're hilarious when you're on your little campaigns, entertains me and many others watching you get going

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:21 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:So your failure to state your opinion on what they said is me jumping the gun?
Despite the fact it's the same as what I've said...

Not even a little bit sunshine.

Again, you're hilarious when you're on your little campaigns, entertains me and many others watching you get going

I'm only going to explain this once.

I had an opinion on what he meant. But my opinion could have been wrong. Someone else has already been wrong about what he was saying. So to save time and confusion i made the perfectly ******* reasonable decision to just ask him what he was saying rather than risking wasting both of our time asking him to explain why he thought the legal rep was a joke only to find out that's not what he was saying either.

If it turns out that my opinion was right then i ask my follow up question. But if it turned out my opinion was wrong then at least I find out what he was actually saying, and can then ask any follow up questions i like now that I've established what it is he actually meant.

Do. you. *******. understand. now?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:21 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Ah so it's all opinions/conjecture.

Until we get one that it can be done too we will never know.

No - he seemed to be saying that there has been cases in the past where the government has not revoked citizenship when there has been dual citizenship with a western country.

Seems to be pretty logical really - in the same way this has been 100% a political decision by Javid he would not think twice about talking about the virtues of upholding the law if he was in risk of upsetting another country that “mattered” to the government.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:09 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You're that argumentative you didn't understand that he's saying actual legal rep is a joke, as in the person.

Ah you're hilarious when you're in this mood and simple things like this fly right past you.

Precisely this. I knew what the next question was going to be and I’m not getting into a two way tit for tat with someone who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. The other poster can look it up as to reasons why I might think that legal representative cannot betaken seriously.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:15 pm

Blackrod wrote:Precisely this. I knew what the next question was going to be and I’m not getting into a two way tit for tat with someone who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. The other poster can look it up as to reasons why I might think that legal representative cannot betaken seriously.

If you can't bring yourself to even explain what point it is you're making in case someone else criticises it then you're obviously not confident in merits of the point you're making.

It's also pretty snowflakey to be too scared to have someone disagree with you.

"What is the point you're making?"
"I'm not telling you because then you might ask me follow-up questions which might show my opinion to be unsound."

Edit: btw, Blackrod. I'm not singling you out deliberately on this. I regularly ask questions like "why do you think that?" and I don't think I've ever had someone on here explain their opinion. So you're by no means the only one.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:24 pm

Just curious IT.... Do you look like Billy Bunter?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:34 pm

tim_noone wrote:Just curious IT.... Do you look like Billy Bunter?

No.

Wait. Are you being argumentative by asking a question? SIDNEY!!!!! Save me from this argumentative person. He's asking me too many difficult questions.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:43 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No.

Wait. Are you being argumentative by asking a question? SIDNEY!!!!! Save me from this argumentative person. He's asking me too many difficult questions.

No... That's fine

I'm the curious not the argumentative type...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:51 pm

tim_noone wrote:No... That's fine I'm the curious not the argumentative type...

The funny thing is i get accused of being argumentative when i don't be inquisitive and just straight-up tell someone they're wrong without trying to understand why they reached the opinion they hold. Yet when i do try to understand how someone came to their opinion i get called argumentative again.

Anyway... who's Billy Bunter? Wait, we need Sidney's permission before you answer that question. I don't want to be argumentative.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:02 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm only going to explain this once.

I had an opinion on what he meant. But my opinion could have been wrong. Someone else has already been wrong about what he was saying. So to save time and confusion i made the perfectly ******* reasonable decision to just ask him what he was saying rather than risking wasting both of our time asking him to explain why he thought the legal rep was a joke only to find out that's not what he was saying either.

If it turns out that my opinion was right then i ask my follow up question. But if it turned out my opinion was wrong then at least I find out what he was actually saying, and can then ask any follow up questions i like now that I've established what it is he actually meant.

Do. you. *******. understand. now?

Calm down before you give yourself a heart attack.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:03 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The funny thing is i get accused of being argumentative when i don't be inquisitive and just straight-up tell someone they're wrong without trying to understand why they reached the opinion they hold. Yet when i do try to understand how someone came to their opinion i get called argumentative again.

Anyway... who's Billy Bunter? Wait, we need Sidney's permission before you answer that question. I don't want to be argumentative.

You knew full well what he meant, you just went the long way to get there because that's how you like to operate on here, it's very amusing.

If you cut out a lot of guff you'd find life easier.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:08 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Calm down before you give yourself a heart attack.

Don't discourage

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:09 pm

Back to the delightful lady in question, she has now said she will apply for Dutch citizenship whilst her husband is in prison, again a country that doesn't do Sharia law, could it be the grim reality of living under Sharia law such as in Pakistan, Bangladesh Afghanistan all places that would take her if she asked for asylum isn't actually that appealing ?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:14 pm

It's probably appealing right up until it becomes reality, or they start losing.

Yet there are still some that want to implement it over here and there are some Sharia 'courts' in the UK to deal with minor things.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:33 pm

I'm looking forward to this thread when the next lot of dual nationality Isis brides start rocking up at camps in Syria demanding to come back to the UK.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:45 pm

I'd be interested to see what would happen if Bangladesh pulled the same stunt with a potential criminal with dual British-Bangladeshi citizenship who had never stepped foot in the UK before. The reaction on this board would be interesting I'm sure.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:02 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You knew full well what he meant, you just went the long way to get there because that's how you like to operate on here, it's very amusing.

If you cut out a lot of guff you'd find life easier.

Sometimes i like to make sure someone clearly define what it is they mean before i tear it down.

IF you express an opinion in public you should be prepared to answer question about your opinion, otherwise it's worthless.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:10 pm

"Sometimes i like to make sure someone clearly define what it is they mean before i tear it down."

Do you wear a cape while doing so ?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:12 pm

Not all heroes wear capes.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:19 pm

Rileybobs wrote:I'd be interested to see what would happen if Bangladesh pulled the same stunt with a potential criminal with dual British-Bangladeshi citizenship who had never stepped foot in the UK before. The reaction on this board would be interesting I'm sure.

So long as they do it legally, Turtle will be happy, sort of, ish ...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:51 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:So long as they do it legally, Turtle will be happy, sort of, ish ...

If a trial and conviction is reached i have no problem with a government punishing someone. I feel like i've told you this so many times already that by now you're just purely trolling. Either that or you have serious mental problems and should see a doctor.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:07 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If a trial and conviction is reached i have no problem with a government punishing someone. I feel like i've told you this so many times already that by now you're just purely trolling. Either that or you have serious mental problems and should see a doctor.

No need to see a doctor, I just said so long as it's legal you're happy.

So long as they don't come back to the UK and it's fully legal then I'm happy.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:25 pm

TVC15 wrote:No - he seemed to be saying that there has been cases in the past where the government has not revoked citizenship when there has been dual citizenship with a western country.

Seems to be pretty logical really - in the same way this has been 100% a political decision by Javid he would not think twice about talking about the virtues of upholding the law if he was in risk of upsetting another country that “mattered” to the government.

What like Saudi Arabia,double standards from our government well i never.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:39 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:No need to see a doctor, I just said so long as it's legal you're happy.

So long as they don't come back to the UK and it's fully legal then I'm happy.

Then you're a fool. Unless you just don't value freedom, of course. You repeatedly refused to answer that question when i asked it.

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:43 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Then you're a fool. Unless you just don't value freedom, of course. You repeatedly refused to answer that question when i asked it.

So if she's barred from entering the country using legal means, that's wrong?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:45 pm

Murger wrote:So if she's barred from entering the country using legal means, that's wrong?

The government has punished her without giving her a trial.

Seriously. How many ******* times do i have to explain that this is my point?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:54 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Then you're a fool. Unless you just don't value freedom, of course. You repeatedly refused to answer that question when i asked it.

Nope definitely not a fool.

As for freedom, you appear to be more arsed about the terrorist group member than about our right to not be attacked by people like her.

I'll never be invoked in a religion based terrorist group, nor will my kids thankfully.
As someone else has pointed out to you, we've already lost various amount of freedoms because of the actions of groups like Isis, go and cry to someone about that instead, you might get more sympathy about that then you will from me about this silly woman in Syria.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:55 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The government has punished her without giving her a trial.

Seriously. How many ******* times do i have to explain that this is my point?

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, they've used a perfectly legal law to strip her of her citizenship.
No need for a trial with that particular law, so suck it up and get over it.

You'd have a real point if they'd not used valid existing laws to do it.

They've done it several times these last couple of years but you've yet to whine about that....

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:00 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, they've used a perfectly legal law to strip her of her citizenship.
No need for a trial with that particular law, so suck it up and get over it.

You'd have a real point if they'd not used valid existing laws to do it.

The legality of it isn't the issue. It's the lack of a right to a fair trial.

It was perfectly legal for Count Dankula to be prosecuted and fined for his Nazi Pug video but i don't remember you objecting to my complains about that using the argument that it was legal.

It's about our rights, or lack of them. I don't give a **** how legal it is to deliberately deny someone a fair trial. Why is it so hard for you to understand? It wasn't always this hard for you to understand. Yesterday you initially understood it perfectly well when correcting someone else when you said i wasn't supporting Begum, i was defending our system of justice. But for some reason you've "forgotten" that. And i've put "forgotten" in quotes because i don't think you've forgotten at all. I think at this stage you're just trolling.

If the government so wishes, I don't have the right to a trial if the government accuses me of something. And neither do you.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:07 pm

Apparently she is eligible to play for the Bangladesh Netball team due to her maternal line. Every cloud and all that.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The legality of it isn't the issue. It's the lack of a right to a fair trial.

It was perfectly legal for Count Dankula to be prosecuted and fined for his Nazi Pug video but i don't remember you objecting to my complains about that using the argument that it was legal.

It's about our rights, or lack of them. I don't give a **** how legal it is to deliberately deny someone a fair trial. Why is it so hard for you to understand? It wasn't always this hard for you to understand. Yesterday you initially understood it perfectly well when correcting someone else when you said i wasn't supporting Begum, i was defending our system of justice. But for some reason you've "forgotten" that. And i've put "forgotten" in quotes because i don't think you've forgotten at all. I think at this stage you're just trolling.

If the government so wishes, I don't have the right to a trial if the government accuses me of something. And neither do you.

I see you've ignored the part where I've pointed out it isn't the first time these last couple of years that they've revoked the citizenship of Isis members before they came back and left them abroad.

I haven't forgotten what's been said, I even agreed it should all be legal.

Guess what, it has been done all legal and above board.
Something that the majority of us are quite chuffed about, because we know our government are doing the right thing.

It doesn't matter if it isn't right in the world of Turtle, because we all know you'd rather they dragged them back over here, put them in court and eventually let them back into the community where they can carry on their campaign of hatred against us.

As for you harping on about freedom and fear of being put away without trial, can I suggest you don't bugger off to join a terrorist organisation....
Or failing that open that shell around your head and see that these situations require handling in a different way to a Bellend who thinks the Nazi salute is appropriate.....which it isn't.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:15 pm

Poor turtle currently sat in his room with Rick Astley singing never gonna give you up on a constant loop while having her face as a screen saver.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:18 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I see you've ignored the part where I've pointed out it isn't the first time these last couple of years that they've revoked the citizenship of Isis members before they came back and left them abroad.

...

It doesn't matter whether it's been done before. That changes absolutely nothing about the point I'm making. Why are you having so much trouble accepting that my objection is about the right to a trial? How many times does it need to be explained to you?

Answer this question. Is my objection about the legality of it, or is my objection about the right to a trial? I want you to answer this so that I know you've finally grasped this.

pushpinpussy · Post by **pushpinpussy** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:27 pm

He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:32 pm

pushpinpussy wrote:He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.

My reasoning is perfectly sound. And unlike people who are trying to shut me up i'm perfectly willing to answer questions about my opinion.
I think if you should take issue with anyones reasoning it's that of those who know it can't stand up to scrutiny.

We no longer have the right to a trial. Neither do you. The weird thing is that none of you people seem to be willing to tell me whether you're even OK with that or not.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:33 pm

Ok with what ? her not getting a trial ?

I am perfectly fine with it

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:34 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It doesn't matter whether it's been done before. That changes absolutely nothing about the point I'm making. Why are you having so much trouble accepting that my objection is about the right to a trial? How many times does it need to be explained to you?

Answer this question. Is my objection about the legality of it, or is my objection about the right to a trial? I want you to answer this so that I know you've finally grasped this.

I made reference to the other times because you've never ever had an issue before this woman turned up.
Why is that?
Why is it this one that bothers you so much?

The law they've used means she doesn't need to face a court, that's an actual legal right the government has.
She's admitted she joined Isis etc.

You're objection is that she didn't get a trial, we all know that's what you're whining about because you're trying to convince us all that we could be next to get in trouble and not get a fair trial

Well unlucky for you, she didn't need one to have her citizenship stripped away because she's proven she doesn't deserve it based on the current laws/rules surrounding the right to UK citizenship.
It would also appear that in certain circumstances they can actually leave a person stateless, but that's for extreme bellends.

So you can stop crying about it now, it's legal not trial required, job done, she can stay out in the desert.
If Holland have anything about them they'll tell her to get lost as well.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:35 pm

pushpinpussy wrote:He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.

Now that is a classy 1,000th post.

Well played n

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:My reasoning is perfectly sound. And unlike people who are trying to shut me up i'm perfectly willing to answer questions about my opinion.
I think if you should take issue with anyones reasoning it's that of those who know it can't stand up to scrutiny.

We no longer have the right to a trial. Neither do you. The weird thing is that none of you people seem to be willing to tell me whether you're even OK with that or not.

I'm fine with no trial in certain circumstances.

There, I've said it, now I'm off to prison for whatever the government wants to send me there for...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:37 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I made reference to the other times because you've never ever had an issue before this woman turned up.
...

jUsT BeCaUsE I HaVeN'T ExPrEsSeD An iSsUe wItH SoMeThInG DoEsN'T MeAn i dOn't hAvE An iSsUe wItH It.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:38 pm

Be honest turtle you cry far too much to not mention something you have an issue with

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:40 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Be honest turtle you cry far too much to not mention something you have an issue with

I was probably banned at the time for telling you to shush.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:41 pm

Did you grass on yourself ?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:44 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:jUsT BeCaUsE I HaVeN'T ExPrEsSeD An iSsUe wItH SoMeThInG DoEsN'T MeAn i dOn't hAvE An iSsUe wItH It.

Is typing this way still a fad on social media?
I was expecting it to have died out by now.