Hitting the Eastern European problem head on, morality v’s self interest?

[maggot_dangler]

Here's a question for the moralists among you.

You decide to de-clutter and take all your excess stuff to the boot sale to sell.
As soon as you unload the car you are surrounded by half a dozen swarthy young men with cropped hair and shiny track suits speaking an undecipherable language all asking for prices on your spare fishing tackle.

Do you

A) Refuse to serve them?
B) Give them a lecture about catch and release?
C) Double your prices?

Triple the prices , then when they start trying to barter add 50% every time the offer less .. soon sends em packing ..

PG ..

 

[nicepix]

Here's a question for the moralists among you.

You decide to de-clutter and take all your excess stuff to the boot sale to sell.
As soon as you unload the car you are surrounded by half a dozen swarthy young men with cropped hair and shiny track suits speaking an undecipherable language all asking for prices on your spare fishing tackle.

Do you

A) Refuse to serve them?
B) Give them a lecture about catch and release?
C) Double your prices?

Knowing you Ade I'll bet you did a deal to have one of your roofs fixed and anew bathroom fitted.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------

because there is a function allowing me to do so when I saw fit to use it so, have I broke the forum law or something PC?

After reading my posts some of the stuff doesn't make sense ......................

We are agreed on that.


Top 5 Countries with the Highest Rates of Rape


Thanks, but it is the part where you assert that you cannot find answers to questions about this statistic due to political correctness that I am interested in. Do you have a source for your claims?

While you are in the question ducking mood; How about giving examples of where the Queen has overruled Parliament in respect of a conflict of her allegiance to God? Given the issues surrounding Same Sex Marriage and Sunday drinking / gambling that have slipped through Statute unmolested it might be that your fears are simply groundless scare mongering?

Your posts remind me of an old Scottish rhyme:

Muckle din but leil oo,
as the Deil said when he sheared the soo.

 

[bennygesserit]

Here's a question for the moralists among you.

You decide to de-clutter and take all your excess stuff to the boot sale to sell.
As soon as you unload the car you are surrounded by half a dozen swarthy young men with cropped hair and shiny track suits speaking an undecipherable language all asking for prices on your spare fishing tackle.

Do you

A) Refuse to serve them?
B) Give them a lecture about catch and release?
C) Double your prices?

Good question !

Personally , as a private seller , I would ask whether they believed in catch and release and if they did then fine, if not then I would refuse to sell.

---------- Post added at 09:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------

Forever avoiding the awkward bits eh Benny? If stuck for words change the topic.
Oh and those examples of my not speaking openly please? Any views are substantially supported by fact so please, back your words up.

Have you done anything concrete to solve this problem if you have then fair play to you.

 

[nicepix]

Have you done anything concrete to solve this problem if you have then fair play to you.

You could ask Wes the same question. Oh! I forgot. You already have and so have I and we are still waiting for his answer.

 

[wes79]

Knowing you Ade I'll bet you did a deal to have one of your roofs fixed and anew bathroom fitted.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------



While you are in the question ducking mood; How about giving examples of where the Queen has overruled Parliament in respect of a conflict of her allegiance to God? Given the issues surrounding Same Sex Marriage and Sunday drinking / gambling that have slipped through Statute unmolested it might be that your fears are simply groundless scare mongering?

Your posts remind me of an old Scottish rhyme:

Muckle din but leil oo,
as the Deil said when he sheared the soo.

I think you are missing a point here nicepix, also your now having to just obviously pick parts out of my replies leaving other parts out to mould an arguement, you asked for evidence of the Swedish rape statistic's, if you do your own research you will know that even the BBC covered it some time ago.
Secondly the Queen made an oath with God to protect the people using the laws of God, this oath was made at her coronation, it might even still be up on YT if you still need evidence of that, these laws of God forbid other law systems, homosexuality, theft, murder etc so how can the Queen give "royal assent" using these said laws when they nullify them, its really simple stuff this nicepix, its a basic contradiction of loyalty.
You can read more here if that is your thing.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx

And your confusing admission about the same sex marriage thing and point about scare mongering is moot also, have you missed the part where the Queen DID give her royal assent?

Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval.

Finally legal: Queen gives gay marriage the Royal Assent - Home News - UK - The Independent
Seems to contradict her oath made to God from where I'm standing, maybe I'm misunderstood and you can help me see where my error was!

Do you have any more empty punches left?

After reading my posts some of the stuff doesn't make sense ......................

We are agreed on that.

So you are now reduced to throwing mud.

Thanks, but it is the part where you assert that you cannot find answers to questions about this statistic due to political correctness that I am interested in. Do you have a source for your claims?

mg:
Yes, thats easy..... I call it the time in between immigration policy becoming law and the point where the amount of rapes reach a critical point that finally provokes such a late and timid debate about the causes.

That statistic could only happen when confusion about what the law on rape involves (including punishments AND PREVENTIVE measures/deterrents) and/or you increase the amount of rapists in society takes place first and making it taboo to talk about it (PC) for fears that bare no relation to that which the victims of such crimes already have, which I have already explained.
Or do you need a website to tell you that as well?

---------- Post added at 03:06 ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 ----------

You could ask Wes the same question. Oh! I forgot. You already have and so have I and we are still waiting for his answer.

LOL mg:

with resepect I actually think you covered it quite early in the thread nicepix, where you said its about having a law and it having some force, basically, I think you just dislike me because I don't agree with the rubbish on PC, apart from that we haven't actually been in disagreement on most of the rest of the issues raised (I can accept I am perhaps wrong on that much).

To repeat, in case you missed that, having a law system that punishes crime, acts as a deterrent and also the majority of the public (as opposed to just the rule makers) being able to openly talk about it is key to solving the problem.
meanwhile we are at first base, barely able to discuss it without upsetting some limp wristed liberal who is in the waiting on the cry of bigottry, racism, or forum rules where you can't call a spade a spade etc etc etc

I've been quite clear about that also.

 

[nicepix]

I think you are missing a point here nicepix, also your now having to just obviously pick parts out of my replies leaving other parts out to mould an arguement, you asked for evidence of the Swedish rape statistic's, if you do your own research you will know that even the BBC covered it some time ago.
Secondly the Queen made an oath with God to protect the people using the laws of God, this oath was made at her coronation, it might even still be up on YT if you still need evidence of that, these laws of God forbid other law systems, homosexuality, theft, murder etc so how can the Queen give "royal assent" using these said laws when they nullify them, its really simple stuff this nicepix, its a basic contradiction of loyalty.

And your confusing admission about the same sex marriage thing and point about scare mongering is moot also, have you missed the part where the Queen DID give her royal assent?
Finally legal: Queen gives gay marriage the Royal Assent - Home News - UK - The Independent

Do you have any more empty punches left?
Scaremongering? how? I'm simply stating the facts as they appear, you are now reduced to throwing mud.


mg:
Yes, thats easy..... I call it the time in between immigration policy becoming law and the point where the amount of rapes reach a critical point that finally provokes such a late and timid debate about the causes. That could only happen when confusion about what the law on rape involves (including punishments) and/or you increase the amount of rapists in society and making it taboo to talk about (PC) which I have already explained.
Or do you need a website to tell you that as well?

OK, let's narrow it down to specific questions. Seeing as you insist on others supporting their views with links and evidence you won't mind me asking the same as you.

Your post 153:

Example...

Sweden is now the RAPE capitol of Europe, and it has been steadily climbing in tandem with demographic statistics based on immigration ...there you go, that was easy, and factual & completely truthful.

But when you dig a bit deeper and discuss the cause you hit a PC brick wall, because you might factually be discussing things that PC hides with the premise of "equality" like RACE for example.

The statistical data proves that two RACES of people are committing the rapes in Sweden in glaringly high proportion by percentage, which isn't including Swedes raping Swedes in high numbers, which shows a higher disproportionate value to immigrants by overall numbers or by percentage since post 1997 immigration, its a statistical fact that needn't carry any derogatory terms about who is actually committing the rapes, but is still silenced by PC rules for discussing RACE in a negative light, which can be easily deemed RACIST by the use of PC, the effect of this stifles any reasoned, factual discussion on what the cause might be and how to disseminate these findings amongst others with the same concerns.

Where did you get that from?

From your post 172:

The "constitutional monarch" is we are told, simply a figure head for democratic government, but in a bizarre twist of logic, the oath she swore was to the God of the bible during her coronation, so right there already is a conflict of interest on her part and as she gives royal accent to man made law (which last time I checked the bible prohibits man made laws in the Decalogue) she may even be suffering from the potency of her power as her empire crumbles, also self nullifying her own subjects justice for business interests via a justice system. Her coronation oath contradicts "pure" PC theory, only saying.

Where has this supposed conflict of interest manifested itself?

Only saying like.

 

[flightliner]

Here's a question for the moralists among you.

You decide to de-clutter and take all your excess stuff to the boot sale to sell.
As soon as you unload the car you are surrounded by half a dozen swarthy young men with cropped hair and shiny track suits speaking an undecipherable language all asking for prices on your spare fishing tackle.

Do you

A) Refuse to serve them?
B) Give them a lecture about catch and release?
C) Double your prices?

Non of the above, I'd be more interested in knowing if they had seen David Ike recantly

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

Good question !

Personally , as a private seller , I would ask whether they believed in catch and release and if they did then fine, if not then I would refuse to sell.

---------- Post added at 09:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------




Have you done anything concrete to solve this problem if you have then fair play to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobby C (ACA) View Post
Forever avoiding the awkward bits eh Benny? If stuck for words change the topic.
Oh and those examples of my not speaking openly please? Any views are substantially supported by fact so please, back your words up.

As I said earlier, just cherry picking the bits you like and avoiding the awkward bits. Back your accusations up if you want me to take you seriously.
I'm in the AT for the duration, not just a token year. I collect and remove set lines, I've challenged two Poles on Penn Ponds in Richmond park, on my own and I've collected bin bags of litter with disposable BBQ's and bottles of Polish lager, maybe it was a native that left those hey? Wouldn't want to offend any handwringers and apologists now would we?

Nicepix:
All this guff about dictionary definitions of PC are so much hot air, just because you say it is so, doesn't mean the reality reflects that, what sort of bubble to you people live in? Anyway, you made no response about the institutional racism endemic in the UK police force, too awkward?

Titus:
I find your tone offensive, not all EE's are swarthy,have cropped hair and shiny tracksuits. It is racial stereotyping and should be expunged from your post before one of the handwringers has palpitations.
As for the boot sale, I'd charge an obscene amount of money and if they buy it, good, if not good.
That is on the assumption that I actually understand their indecipherable language.:wh

 

[wes79]

OK, let's narrow it down to specific questions. Seeing as you insist on others supporting their views with links and evidence you won't mind me asking the same as you.

Your post 153:



Where did you get that from?

From your post 172:



Where has this supposed conflict of interest manifested itself?

Only saying like.

Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States.

In 2003, Sweden’s rape statistics were higher than average at 9.24, but in 2005 they shot up to 36.8 and by 2008 were up to 53.2. Now they are almost certainly even higher as Muslim immigrants continue forming a larger percentage of the population.

With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual race war driven by a combination of jealousy derived from the beauty of white women and general non-white lawlessness.

In Stockholm during 2012, there were an average of 5 rapes a day. Stockholm has gone from a Swedish city to a city that is one-third immigrant and is between a fifth and a quarter Muslim.

The extremely high level of crime is primarily concentrated in Muslim] Africans and people from the Middle East.

According to official statistics from the Swedish police, Iraqi and Moroccan men commit rape over twenty times more often than Swedish men. This report does not take into account those non-whites who have acquired Swedish nationality, and only counts those non-whites who are not Swedish citizens. It is likely that should the non-white Swedish nationals be included in the race rape war figures, the statistics would be even more outrageous.

This rape race war is echoing itself in Norway was well, with a recent police report (see video below) stating unequivocally that all rapes in Norway are committed by non-whites.

Europeans should be under no illusions as to what awaits them should the non-white invasion not be halted and reversed. The end result will be racial genocide, aided and abetted by the liberal establishment.

The Swedish parliament has changed the constitution to make it easier to prosecute Swedes who insult government officials, immigrants, LesGayBiTransexual’s, Muslims, and other minorities on the internet. Swedes are not protected by the changes because they are not considered to be an ethnic group and can therefore never legally become a minority.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize - Voltaire

Censorship for Christmas | Swedish Surveyor
Fria Tider | Mediesverige behöver en rak höger
Sweden: A New Hell for Women | d-intl.com
Western Spring � The Racial Rape War against Swedish Women
N�gra �ndringar p� tryck- och yttrandefrihetens omr�de - riksdagen.se
Svensk f�rfattningssamling 1962:700 Brottsbalk (1962:700) - riksdagen.se

Answer to your second question this is called duality.
The Bible contains these two verses (both contained in The Queen's Bible, held in Westminster, present and was even kissed at her coronation):

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

Whos graven image in on all British currency (notes and coins)/money nicepix?

Any thing I've missed?

 

[nicepix]

Nicepix:
All this guff about dictionary definitions of PC are so much hot air, just because you say it is so, doesn't mean the reality reflects that, what sort of bubble to you people live in? Anyway, you made no response about the institutional racism endemic in the UK police force, too awkward?

That only means that we have a difference of opinion. Or are you claiming that your version is the only true one? As for the endemic racism question; in 25 years I never once saw or heard of any incident of racism involving a police officer in our force. However, according to one report:

The figures from South Yorkshire Police reveal that between 2005 and 2013, the conduct of 105 officers was investigated following complaints of racism from fellow colleagues and members of the public.

Three officers were disciplined for their behaviour.

Three convictions out of 3,000+ officers in 8 years does not amount to 'endemic' in my book.

 

[bennygesserit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobby C (ACA) View Post
Forever avoiding the awkward bits eh Benny? If stuck for words change the topic.
Oh and those examples of my not speaking openly please? Any views are substantially supported by fact so please, back your words up.

As I said earlier, just cherry picking the bits you like and avoiding the awkward bits. Back your accusations up if you want me to take you seriously.
I'm in the AT for the duration, not just a token year. I collect and remove set lines, I've challenged two Poles on Penn Ponds in Richmond park, on my own and I've collected bin bags of litter with disposable BBQ's and bottles of Polish lager, maybe it was a native that left those hey? Wouldn't want to offend any handwringers and apologists now would we?

Nicepix:
All this guff about dictionary definitions of PC are so much hot air, just because you say it is so, doesn't mean the reality reflects that, what sort of bubble to you people live in? Anyway, you made no response about the institutional racism endemic in the UK police force, too awkward?

Titus:
I find your tone offensive, not all EE's are swarthy,have cropped hair and shiny tracksuits. It is racial stereotyping and should be expunged from your post before one of the handwringers has palpitations.
As for the boot sale, I'd charge an obscene amount of money and if they buy it, good, if not good.
That is on the assumption that I actually understand their indecipherable language.:wh

Good as I said fair play at least you are doing something practical , I personally left the AT because I disagreed with their stance on canoeing.

 

[nicepix]

Any thing I've missed?

Both questions as usual.

Just to remind you I asked where you got the information or opinion that obtaining statistics on the breakdown of race involved in the offences was being obstructed by political correctness? The information you have posted does not reflect that. Quite the reverse.

And, the second question I asked was for you to list any actual instances where the monarch has intervened in laws passed by Parliament due to her conflict of interests?

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

That only means that we have a difference of opinion. Or are you claiming that your version is the only true one? As for the endemic racism question; in 25 years I never once saw or heard of any incident of racism involving a police officer in our force. However, according to one report:



Three convictions out of 3,000+ officers in 8 years does not amount to 'endemic' in my book.

Mcpherson begs to differ but hey ho.

Sir William Macpherson's inquiry into the handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder, published in 2000, said the Metropolitan Police still suffered from "institutional racism".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233.stm

 

[nicepix]

Mcpherson begs to differ but hey ho.

Sir William Macpherson's inquiry into the handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder, published in 2000, said the Metropolitan Police still suffered from "institutional racism".
BBC ON THIS DAY | 25 | 1981: Brixton riots report blames racial tension

That is fifteen years old and concerns one Force. Not the one I served in.

And you accuse Benny of cherry picking? :wh

 

[bennygesserit]

Mcpherson begs to differ but hey ho.

Sir William Macpherson's inquiry into the handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder, published in 2000, said the Metropolitan Police still suffered from "institutional racism".
BBC ON THIS DAY | 25 | 1981: Brixton riots report blames racial tension

Your quote seems counter to your other posts what were you trying to prove ?.

 

[wes79]

Both questions as usual.

Just to remind you I asked where you got the information or opinion that obtaining statistics on the breakdown of race involved in the offences was being obstructed by political correctness? The information you have posted does not reflect that. Quite the reverse.

And, the second question I asked was for you to list any actual instances where the monarch has intervened in laws passed by Parliament due to her conflict of interests?

How so?

You asked:

Where did you get that from? (my post 153 regarding what you under lined)

I gave you the information, I provided you with links to that information, its no good asking me for my "opinion" on what I think of it, that's just adding unnecessary conjecture to a debate that ultimately should rely on accountable sources, you have so far failed to understand the basics of even that, not even noticing that you have already answered your own question to. What obstructions do you see to obtaining justice for those women being raped isn't a PC stumbling block?
Perhaps your used to having a bit of imaginary questioning power over your equal and its left a mental scar effecting your logic on how things operate in the real world, who knows?
I presented you with the facts you asked for (twice) already with an explanation as to why we are having to discuss all these problems (how they are related also) in retrospect of LAW (inc deterrent/punishment).
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understood what I was saying, you will not accept facts when they are presented and contradict your own lofty views, don't blame me, its not my opinion.

Regarding the Queen you seem to only be interested in what she does before doing a complete u-turn on it, especially since you refuse to give consideration to her oath that she gave to God in regards to mine and your future protection (using biblical laws and there powerful deterrents), not what in essence she is giving royal assent to (some of it wholly contradictory),
Actively putting British civilization at risk doesn't necessarily come by internet link up, but if you refuse to beleive what you see than why bother? civilization? You know the one that used to enjoy relatively low levels of rape because it was protected by laws that made sexual crimes punishable in a way that deterred all would be rapists?
Not wanting to reminisce nicepix? how come?
All you asking me really is to list all the "royal veto's": well here you go, fill ya boots lad.Doesn't change the facts though.
Royal 'consent' to laws revealed after FOI battle - BBC News

Giving royal assent to illegal wars etc which taxpayers unwittingly fund (and vote for) creates the environment for mass immigration, which causes problems for a certain age range of females (white European mainly) and in a couple of decades or when completely out numbered...all males of fighting age!

That is about the biggest conflict of interest you can actually create for someone who is sworn in as our defender who ultimately stands to lose her empire, Act by Act, even the EU flag above Buckingham Palace is a clue, not to you though.

proof, proof, prove its a fish and not sea living creature!

All of this is just flying over your head though.
Going for the crumbs when there is a full loaf, right in front of you, I would say.


nicepix : what is that?
wes79 : its a card board box!
nicepix : prove it, looks like brown dried wood pulp to me!
wes79 : its still what we call a card board box!

 

[nicepix]

How so?

You asked:

Where did you get that from? (my post 153 regarding what you under lined)

I gave you the information, I provided you with links to that information, its no good asking me for my "opinion" on what I think of it, that's just adding unnecessary conjecture to a debate that ultimately should rely on accountable sources, you have so far failed to understand the basics of even that, not even noticing that you have already answered your own question to.
Perhaps your used to having a bit of imaginary questioning power over your equal and its left a mental scar effecting your logic on how things operate in the real world, who knows?
I presented you with the facts you asked for (twice) already with an explanation as to why we are having to discuss all these problems (how they are related also) in retrospect of LAW (inc deterrent/punishment).
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understood what I was saying, you will not accept facts when they are presented and contradict your own lofty views, don't blame me, its not my opinion.

Regarding the Queen you seem to only be interested in what she does before doing a complete u-turn on it, especially since you refuse to give consideration to her oath that she gave to God in regards to mine and your future protection, not what in essence she is giving royal assent to, some of it wholly contradictory, while actively putting European civilization at risk, you know the one that used to enjoy relatively low levels of rape because it was punishable in a way that deterred all would be rapists?
All you asking me really is to list all the "royal veto's": well here you go, fill ya boots lad.Doesn't change the facts though.
Royal 'consent' to laws revealed after FOI battle - BBC News

Giving royal assent to illegal wars etc which taxpayers unwittingly fund (and vote for) creates the environment for mass immigration, which causes problems for a certain age range of females (white European mainly) and when out numbered, all males of fighting age, that is about the biggest conflict of interest for someone who is sworn in as our defender. All of this is just flying over your head though.
Going for the crumbs when there is a full loaf, right in front of you, I would say.


nicepix : what is that?
wes79 : its a card board box!
nicepix : prove it, looks like brown dried wood pulp to me!
wes79 : its still what we call a card board box!

Still ducking and diving.

The First Question is from your quote:

"Sweden is now the RAPE capitol of Europe, and it has been steadily climbing in tandem with demographic statistics based on immigration ...there you go, that was easy, and factual & completely truthful.

But when you dig a bit deeper and discuss the cause you hit a PC brick wall, because you might factually be discussing things that PC hides with the premise of "equality" like RACE for example."

Underlined and in Bold type. Please show us where this information about the PC Brick Wall is sourced. Because your later posts identifying the nationalities of suspects seems to have overcome this sinister blockage of information you claim thwarts impartial investigation. Just saying like.

Second Question from your quote:

The "constitutional monarch" is we are told, simply a figure head for democratic government, but in a bizarre twist of logic, the oath she swore was to the God of the bible during her coronation, so right there already is a conflict of interest on her part and as she gives royal accent to man made law (which last time I checked the bible prohibits man made laws in the Decalogue) she may even be suffering from the potency of her power as her empire crumbles, also self nullifying her own subjects justice for business interests via a justice system. Her coronation oath contradicts "pure" PC theory, only saying.

Again, show us where the Queen has refused to endorse or changed any laws passed by Parliament because of the 'conflict of interest' you claim threatens British Justice.

I have now asked these questions of you three times and in each case you have squirmed out of answering them. Just saying like.

 

[wes79]

Still ducking and diving.

The First Question is from your quote:


Underlined and in Bold type. Please show us where this information about the PC Brick Wall is sourced. Because your later posts identifying the nationalities of suspects seems to have overcome this sinister blockage of information you claim thwarts impartial investigation. Just saying like.

Second Question from your quote:


Again, show us where the Queen has refused to endorse or changed any laws passed by Parliament because of the 'conflict of interest' you claim threatens British Justice.

I have now asked these questions of you three times and in each case you have squirmed out of answering them. Just saying like.

Why have you now changed the part of my original quote that you underlined to the part further on, lets not go off half cocked mate, you called me out on the first part, are you still claiming I haven't answered that with specific reference to what you originally under lined now?

I said two races, they were given as African and middle eastern, are you trying to tell me you simply missed that part and/or denying that's what the information in the link I provided says?

The facts speak for themselves mate. Also there was no BOLD writing in your post (186) using my quote, it was simply underlined (you do have the option to go and edit it though now I've reminded you ) So your just wanting to criticize me for being impartial myself?)

Are you denying (for a third time as you wish) that these women were raped and that minority status and PC shielding of the perpetrators made this case difficult to accept for the police to take action or take so long to get into the public domain (for not wanting to offend the rapists even after being found guilty)?

Well are you?

Lets keep it even more simple,

How does 400+ white women, in a predominantly white country get raped by exclusively non-white people, with laws prohibiting the rape of a woman, a police FORCE and a Judiciary?

The cause for the Swedes was the time in between flooding the country with immigrants who may or may not of already been rapists, making the Swedes adopt a PC culture in the meantime, but once in Sweden, these immigrants knew that nothing would come of being held to account for raping, as the law had for some really strange reason stopped working at that point (even a constitution change in favour of the would be rapists), so much so that they can now boast the highest rape statistics in Europe and second in the entire world, why do you find that so hard to understand nicepix?

Royal 'consent' to laws revealed after FOI battle - BBC News
By Peter Hunt

Royal correspondent

To critics of the monarchy, the publication of this once secret document is further proof of the power the institution exercises from behind the throne.

Bills as varied as the 1998 Data Protection Act and the 1996 Housing Act needed the approval of either the Queen or Prince Charles before becoming law.

Those seeking an elected head of state describe this as real power in the hands of the Windsors which is an affront to democracy.

Royal officials point out that no government bill has been objected to in modern times and the requesting and granting of consent is made public.

Even so, the process until now hasn't registered on the public consciousness.

Critics call it a royal veto which needs to be scrapped.

Supporters suggest it merely amounts to royal rubber stamping.

It is yet another reminder of the complex nature of the parliamentary process.

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

That is fifteen years old and concerns one Force. Not the one I served in.

And you accuse Benny of cherry picking? :wh

You brought up the time scale of 25 years but now say you were only concerned with the force (ooh sorry, service) you served with. So when you said "our" force, what you really meant was the county you served in? Don't fall off that ladder.

Your quote seems counter to your other posts what were you trying to prove ?.

I'm still waiting for you to back your accusation towards me that I don't speak openly. Have you got too much muesli to crochet or something?

 

[nicepix]

Wes, I have lifted quotes using copy / paste from your original or subsequently edited text. You have failed once again to answer the questions choosing instead to fill the void with other things. I draw from that a conclusion that you have no evidence to back up your opinions. Which is rather strange given your propensity to demand supporting information from those who have differing opinions to yourself.

Regards the Swedish example, it matters not one jot to this thread. But you thought you could use a remote example to make your case probably not expecting to be challenged. There is no PC Brick Wall preventing investigation as you put it: "but is still silenced by PC rules for discussing RACE in a negative light" If there was a PC policy of silence still in place as you outline you could not quote the figures outlining the racial profile of offenders.

Regards the monarch's conflict of interest; again there is nothing in what you said that affects this thread. You simply plucked something out of Anarchist's Weekly that you thought would muddy the waters long enough for you to slip out of the back door. There has never been any threat to British Justice because of the Queen's oath to God has there?

I'm going to leave you now to continue this debate with Nobby. It should prove quite interesting as you assert that the British Legal System is swayed against the indigenous people due to the abeyance of political correctness whilst he argues that the police are institutionally racist. Should make for an interesting spectacle given both your history of supporting your assertions with somewhat dodgy and in your case irrelevant information.

Nobby,
What I said in answer to your assertion that I had ducked a question about institutional racism in the police is that I had not witnessed any in my service. Sorry, that I could not serve for longer or in other places, but I didn't know I was going to be called to account. The report you refer to is 15 years old and concerns one Police Force. I fail to see how that supports your view that the police (in total) are (now) institutionally racist, and as you haven't come up with anything more encompassing or recent I will assume that you have simply cherry picked something you thought might suit your case.

If the police are as you say institutionally racist you are at odds with Wes above who believes they are going soft on foreign criminals.

Perhaps you two can continue the discussion without me?