Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just does what he always does in this situation. Complains about someone arguing in bad faith and then refuses to answer any of the points. Usually resorts to the 'you're obsessed with me' or a one word phrase to delegitimise the poster.
Sat Nav can't debate unless it's on his own terms and melts down if you point out his inconsistencies.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just does what he always does in this situation. Complains about someone arguing in bad faith and then refuses to answer any of the points. Usually resorts to the 'you're obsessed with me' or a one word phrase to delegitimise the poster.
Sat Nav can't debate unless it's on his own terms and melts down if you point out his inconsistencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say you did. It is your opinion that it will leas to more violence, I saw an opinion piece in the guardian saying similar. But it’s supposition.
I’m sure Labour will make changes to it when they get in and if they do not then it will be because they also deem them worthy.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think I’m thick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth is you are not really thick and have an ability to analyse evidence and make reasonable conclusions, but your mind is already made up on certain issues, and it's a matter of confirming those views no matter what, and rejecting all contrary evidence, no matter how convincing or flat out undebatable. Some call that thickness.
Protestors are still allowed to protest
=====
You were still allowed to go out during covid rules so I don't know what your problem is. Is that how it works?
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think I’m thick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth is you are not really thick and have an ability to analyse evidence and make reasonable conclusions, but your mind is already made up on certain issues, and it's a matter of confirming those views no matter what, and rejecting all contrary evidence, no matter how convincing or flat out undebatable. Some call that thickness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The same could be said of you, Tam or anyone. Resorting to calling opponents thick, loses you the argument immediately.
Anyway, enjoy your Sundays both of you, now that you’re allowed to leave your houses of course 😉
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Protestors are still allowed to protest
=====
You were still allowed to go out during covid rules so I don't know what your problem is. Is that how it works?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can protest as often as I want. I couldn’t leave my house during covid rules, I couldn’t go to work, I couldn’t go to two family funerals, I couldn’t visit friends, I couldn’t leave my area even alone in my car.
Apparently that’s how it works.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say you did. It is your opinion that it will leas to more violence, I saw an opinion piece in the guardian saying similar. But it’s supposition.
I’m sure Labour will make changes to it when they get in and if they do not then it will be because they also deem them worthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Labour keeping them or deeming them worthy doesn't make them OK. This is not about political parties for me, it's about fundamental and paramount human rights. You forget that Labour are also a political party, and these beasts are just two sides of the same coin. But labour are much better than the Tories.
Democracy means chosing the guy with a smaller deek so it doesn't hurt as much when they inevitably fack you in the ass.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and everyone and in a much more impactful manner.
The protests took place, they weren’t stopped. If they were your point might have some weight, but that’s not the case.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say you did. It is your opinion that it will leas to more violence, I saw an opinion piece in the guardian saying similar. But it’s supposition.
I’m sure Labour will make changes to it when they get in and if they do not then it will be because they also deem them worthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Labour keeping them or deeming them worthy doesn't make them OK. This is not about political parties for me, it's about fundamental and paramount human rights. You forget that Labour are also a political party, and these beasts are just two sides of the same coin. But labour are much better than the Tories.
Democracy means chosing the guy with a smaller deek so it doesn't hurt as much when they inevitably fack you in the ass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha
On that delightful image, I’m off to cook some steaks.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Protestors are still allowed to protest
=====
You were still allowed to go out during covid rules so I don't know what your problem is. Is that how it works?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can protest as often as I want. I couldn’t leave my house during covid rules, I couldn’t go to work, I couldn’t go to two family funerals, I couldn’t visit friends, I couldn’t leave my area even alone in my car.
Apparently that’s how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could go out during covid, just not like you would have wanted. Your ability to exercise that freedom was limited.
Protesters can protest too, just not how they want to. Their ability to exercise that freedom has been limited.
That's how it works.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and everyone and in a much more impactful manner.
The protests took place, they weren’t stopped. If they were your point might have some weight, but that’s not the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 people arrested is ridiculous and this is just the start of the new legislation. David Lammy said today that Labour won't repeal it. We'll see how your opinion changes if the next government start clamping down on protests you sympathise with.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and everyone and in a much more impactful manner.
The protests took place, they weren’t stopped. If they were your point might have some weight, but that’s not the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They protests were deterred, harassed, impeded and made as impotent as possible within the law. It's not about going ahead or not going ahead with protests. It's more complicated than that.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure this is true. I think the bigger requirement is to be a cuuuuunt. A lot of Tories are very clever people, just terrible human beings.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure this is true. I think the bigger requirement is to be a cuuuuunt. A lot of Tories are very clever people, just terrible human beings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true but being a terrible human being can be a form of thickness.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
Covid rules were necessary.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 people removed from a crowd which was likely to attack them.
A whole Country locked down over a Virus which affected a minority of older people
I mean if you're going to get a bee in your bonnet over the Tories you could at least do it over the fact that they totally mishandled Covid and permanently wrecked the Country. There are people all over who can't feed themselves now but removing 52 plebs who won't stick to their designated area are what you have a problem with
You may as well be a Tory the amount you've been manipulated by them
People just don't get it, doing the Tories work for them again.
Pushing an anti tory agenda over something which most of the Country will look at and wonder if the Tory opposition are complete loons, it's been going on for years in these echo chambers
You'd think after the Tories survived Covid let alone Brexit people would have clocked on by now that doing the same thing will end with the same result
Why can't there be some decent opposition to the Tories instead of this continual dross. There was more than enough ammo to slaughter them years ago.
How can you say that the Tories have survived Covid when we haven't had a general election since and they've been annihilated in every local election? They haven't survived Brexit either, as they were elected on a Brexit platform and haven't had a full election since we officially 'left'.
If you would vote Tory again because of some people protesting something you disagree with, in spite of everything that has happened in the last decade; then I would suggest that you are actually the problem and not the protestors.
Unbelievable stuff, you do understand that a general election can be called when the house of commons loses confidence in the Government. Why is that tories were still galvanised after the beating the got? How were they not finished off by the Truss debacle?
It's because the opposition is dross.
There's only so long you can continue blaming this on everyone else including liberals that don't even vote Tory.
If the opposition was dross, they would have called a GE last year.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arrests for anti-monarchy protests
Page 11 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 7/5/23
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just does what he always does in this situation. Complains about someone arguing in bad faith and then refuses to answer any of the points. Usually resorts to the 'you're obsessed with me' or a one word phrase to delegitimise the poster.
Sat Nav can't debate unless it's on his own terms and melts down if you point out his inconsistencies.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just does what he always does in this situation. Complains about someone arguing in bad faith and then refuses to answer any of the points. Usually resorts to the 'you're obsessed with me' or a one word phrase to delegitimise the poster.
Sat Nav can't debate unless it's on his own terms and melts down if you point out his inconsistencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol
posted on 7/5/23
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say you did. It is your opinion that it will leas to more violence, I saw an opinion piece in the guardian saying similar. But it’s supposition.
I’m sure Labour will make changes to it when they get in and if they do not then it will be because they also deem them worthy.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think I’m thick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth is you are not really thick and have an ability to analyse evidence and make reasonable conclusions, but your mind is already made up on certain issues, and it's a matter of confirming those views no matter what, and rejecting all contrary evidence, no matter how convincing or flat out undebatable. Some call that thickness.
posted on 7/5/23
Protestors are still allowed to protest
=====
You were still allowed to go out during covid rules so I don't know what your problem is. Is that how it works?
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think I’m thick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth is you are not really thick and have an ability to analyse evidence and make reasonable conclusions, but your mind is already made up on certain issues, and it's a matter of confirming those views no matter what, and rejecting all contrary evidence, no matter how convincing or flat out undebatable. Some call that thickness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The same could be said of you, Tam or anyone. Resorting to calling opponents thick, loses you the argument immediately.
Anyway, enjoy your Sundays both of you, now that you’re allowed to leave your houses of course 😉
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Protestors are still allowed to protest
=====
You were still allowed to go out during covid rules so I don't know what your problem is. Is that how it works?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can protest as often as I want. I couldn’t leave my house during covid rules, I couldn’t go to work, I couldn’t go to two family funerals, I couldn’t visit friends, I couldn’t leave my area even alone in my car.
Apparently that’s how it works.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say you did. It is your opinion that it will leas to more violence, I saw an opinion piece in the guardian saying similar. But it’s supposition.
I’m sure Labour will make changes to it when they get in and if they do not then it will be because they also deem them worthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Labour keeping them or deeming them worthy doesn't make them OK. This is not about political parties for me, it's about fundamental and paramount human rights. You forget that Labour are also a political party, and these beasts are just two sides of the same coin. But labour are much better than the Tories.
Democracy means chosing the guy with a smaller deek so it doesn't hurt as much when they inevitably fack you in the ass.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and everyone and in a much more impactful manner.
The protests took place, they weren’t stopped. If they were your point might have some weight, but that’s not the case.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
The country cannot allow violence like we have seen in recent years
======
I didn't say the country should allow violence. And again, the changes will lead to less protests, not less violent protests.
It was known that some protests can and would get violent in future when these laws were made. It's a fallacy to change them because the inevitable has happened at some point. These laws are supposed to serve the people for generations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say you did. It is your opinion that it will leas to more violence, I saw an opinion piece in the guardian saying similar. But it’s supposition.
I’m sure Labour will make changes to it when they get in and if they do not then it will be because they also deem them worthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Labour keeping them or deeming them worthy doesn't make them OK. This is not about political parties for me, it's about fundamental and paramount human rights. You forget that Labour are also a political party, and these beasts are just two sides of the same coin. But labour are much better than the Tories.
Democracy means chosing the guy with a smaller deek so it doesn't hurt as much when they inevitably fack you in the ass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha
On that delightful image, I’m off to cook some steaks.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Protestors are still allowed to protest
=====
You were still allowed to go out during covid rules so I don't know what your problem is. Is that how it works?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can protest as often as I want. I couldn’t leave my house during covid rules, I couldn’t go to work, I couldn’t go to two family funerals, I couldn’t visit friends, I couldn’t leave my area even alone in my car.
Apparently that’s how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could go out during covid, just not like you would have wanted. Your ability to exercise that freedom was limited.
Protesters can protest too, just not how they want to. Their ability to exercise that freedom has been limited.
That's how it works.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and everyone and in a much more impactful manner.
The protests took place, they weren’t stopped. If they were your point might have some weight, but that’s not the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 people arrested is ridiculous and this is just the start of the new legislation. David Lammy said today that Labour won't repeal it. We'll see how your opinion changes if the next government start clamping down on protests you sympathise with.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
Perhaps I should point out to you both how silly the comparison is because it could be reversed:
You supported laws that locked us up in our homes (unless you were protesting BLM of course), prevented us from going to work, from going to our loved ones funerals, that completely destroyed the economy that was already on the brink.
Yet you oppose laws that have caused 52 people to be arrested.
See how easy that is to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I only supported the temporary measures and thought some of them went too far. I would absolutely have been all over it if it had been made permanent. In fact I would have been protesting with you.
Amazing though, how you can't see the inconsistency in opposing temporary laws but backing permanent laws which also curtail your freedoms with a democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because one of them maybe affected us ALL in a lot more ways.
Protestors are still allowed to protest. We were not allowed to leave our houses more than once a day for essential purposes. We weren’t allowed to go to work. We weren’t allowed to go to funerals of family members who had died.
Amazing though, how you cannot see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You didn't like that one because it impacted you personally.
Ironically, under these new rules you could be arrested if anything like that happens again and you protested. They could just say you were going to disrupt the new legislation.
You're permanently giving up one of your freedoms and happily clapping along because it doesn't impact you right now, but impacts the opposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and everyone and in a much more impactful manner.
The protests took place, they weren’t stopped. If they were your point might have some weight, but that’s not the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They protests were deterred, harassed, impeded and made as impotent as possible within the law. It's not about going ahead or not going ahead with protests. It's more complicated than that.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure this is true. I think the bigger requirement is to be a cuuuuunt. A lot of Tories are very clever people, just terrible human beings.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 second ago
Sat Nav is one of those who will be complaining about this sort of thing when the Labour government keep these laws and arrest people at protests he sympathises with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok kid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your strange obsession with me continues. Get a life mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't remember the last time we came across each other on here it's been so long. Maybe you just can't get me out of your head.
Remember when you were complaining daily about tenporary Covid laws taking away your freedoms and them setting a precedent because they adversely affect you and contradicted an opinion you synpathised with. Now there are permanent laws that set a bad precedent and you couldn't care less as they don't adversely affect you or something you sympathise with. You'll soon change your tune when it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100% spot on, but what do you expect from Tories?
Covid rules were necessary. They called them an attack on freedoms.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
Being thick is a requirement for being a Tory. It's in the application form and you have to indicate your level of thickness. The thicker you are the higher your chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure this is true. I think the bigger requirement is to be a cuuuuunt. A lot of Tories are very clever people, just terrible human beings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true but being a terrible human being can be a form of thickness.
posted on 7/5/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
Covid rules were necessary.
Anti protests rules are an attack on freedoms. They call them necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 people removed from a crowd which was likely to attack them.
A whole Country locked down over a Virus which affected a minority of older people
I mean if you're going to get a bee in your bonnet over the Tories you could at least do it over the fact that they totally mishandled Covid and permanently wrecked the Country. There are people all over who can't feed themselves now but removing 52 plebs who won't stick to their designated area are what you have a problem with
You may as well be a Tory the amount you've been manipulated by them
posted on 7/5/23
People just don't get it, doing the Tories work for them again.
Pushing an anti tory agenda over something which most of the Country will look at and wonder if the Tory opposition are complete loons, it's been going on for years in these echo chambers
You'd think after the Tories survived Covid let alone Brexit people would have clocked on by now that doing the same thing will end with the same result
Why can't there be some decent opposition to the Tories instead of this continual dross. There was more than enough ammo to slaughter them years ago.
posted on 7/5/23
How can you say that the Tories have survived Covid when we haven't had a general election since and they've been annihilated in every local election? They haven't survived Brexit either, as they were elected on a Brexit platform and haven't had a full election since we officially 'left'.
If you would vote Tory again because of some people protesting something you disagree with, in spite of everything that has happened in the last decade; then I would suggest that you are actually the problem and not the protestors.
posted on 7/5/23
Unbelievable stuff, you do understand that a general election can be called when the house of commons loses confidence in the Government. Why is that tories were still galvanised after the beating the got? How were they not finished off by the Truss debacle?
It's because the opposition is dross.
There's only so long you can continue blaming this on everyone else including liberals that don't even vote Tory.
posted on 7/5/23
If the opposition was dross, they would have called a GE last year.
Page 11 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14