Casual Bystander Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 .. and I'm not shy to point and laugh at them. How is that reporting to the moderators my mention of a 17th century political figure? Would it help your bid if I mentioned such miscreants as Oliver Cromwell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 How is that reporting to the moderators my mention of a 17th century political figure? Would it help your bid if I mentioned such miscreants as Oliver Cromwell? You implied a threat at UK government figures, that's illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Surely Casual Bystander is H_B. Seems obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You implied a threat at UK government figures, that's illegal. I would also question the legality of forcibly deporting hard-working tax paying voters who just happen to disagree with his stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 You implied a threat at UK government figures, that's illegal. Did I? Hilarious over reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I would also question the legality of forcibly deporting hard-working tax paying voters who just happen to disagree with his stance. Bit of a difference. The forcible deportation is an opinion. Now, it would be illegal if he was actually in power and tried to enact it, but saying that it "should" happen is freedom of speech. Actually making threats, however, is against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Bit of a difference. The forcible deportation is an opinion. Now, it would be illegal if he was actually in power and tried to enact it, but saying that it "should" happen is freedom of speech. Actually making threats, however, is against the law. I was questioning the validity/legality of it actually happening. He's welcome to his lunatic opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I was questioning the validity/legality of it actually happening. He's welcome to his lunatic opinion. Yeah, the main difference is that on the Guy Fawkes comment he's already committed the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I would imagine he was making a stupid throwaway remark without actually planning to blow up Parliament though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Actually making threats, however, is against the law. Could you point out where these threats were made? Yeah, the main difference is that on the Guy Fawkes comment he's already committed the crime. Again, and like the above request, please refer me to where a crime has been committed. Failure to do so would pretty much suggest you are a pant wetting Helen Lovejoy type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 if it's a no vote i'm kicking off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 if it's a no vote i'm kicking off I believe you've just committed a crime there. Not sure, you'll need to check with PC Bairn. He seems to be the expert in all things legal on the information super highway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Could you point out where these threats were made? Again, and like the above request, please refer me to where a crime has been committed. Failure to do so would pretty much suggest you are a pant wetting Helen Lovejoy type. Your "operation Guy Fawkes" implies a threatening comment against the UK establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Your "operation Guy Fawkes" implies a threatening comment against the UK establishment. Helen, your accusation is looking laughably weaker with every passing comment. Now, for clarity could you point to just what laws I am breaking when I refer to something as "Operation Guy Fawkes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Are those who vote no allowed to come back to visit friends & family? What about if you vote no but your wife votes yes.....what then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placidcasual Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 What about if you vote no but your wife votes yes.....what then? You get exiled for not keeping your woman in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You get exiled for not keeping your woman in line. Who gets custody of the kids in this case?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenal till I die Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I seriously hope the no campaign don't stumble across this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Are those who vote no allowed to come back to visit friends & family? Of course, in an independent Scotland the virtues of European wide freedom of movement would be upheld. The problem would be those nasty borders that the Westminster government would erect (*giggle*) to stop you from returning. What about if you vote no but your wife votes yes.....what then? Clearly the wife has more taste in her voting than she did in her decision to get married to a simpering unionist lapdog. I seriously hope the no campaign don't stumble across this thread. If they did, and they used it, it would become the first factual item they have used in their entire campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz1886 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Pretty much as the title says. Those voting "no" are just desperate for gentle caress of their colonial overlords. They should all be run out of town for their lap dog treachery. They will never be forgiven and they will never be forgotten. ^^^ pretty much the reason why I won't be voting at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.