Stamp on his bollocks for me too mate
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,291
Quote: lofthouse @ September 5 2013, 5:38 PM BSTStamp on his bollocks for me too mate
That'll be just be before I've cut um off and shoved them down his throat then.
Don't blame you Roscoff.
I represented a guy who had punched the man who raped his daughter. He had punched him once - personally, I think he would be justified in doing a lot more.
The rapist had the gall to press charges for assault. I went to the prosecutor with a "are you f**king kidding me?" and they dropped the charges.
Poor bloke was still dealing with all that had happened to his kid, only for the cops to lay assault charges.
Quote: Jennie @ September 5 2013, 7:02 PM BSTDon't blame you Roscoff.
I represented a guy who had punched the man who raped his daughter. He had punched him once - personally, I think he would be justified in doing a lot more.
The rapist had the gall to press charges for assault. I went to the prosecutor with a "are you f**king kidding me?" and they dropped the charges.
Poor bloke was still dealing with all that had happened to his kid, only for the cops to lay assault charges.
Five years of karate and a can do attitude saved her from the worst outcome but I always abhorred the fact that some men just think women are easy prey for their sexual inadequacies but touch my daughter and the gloves are not only off but thrown in the bin.
Let's hope he gets sent down and gets to share a cell with some psychotic rapey bastard
Quote: lofthouse @ September 5 2013, 7:40 PM BSTLet's hope he gets sent down and gets to share a cell with some psychotic rapey bastard
^This^
Quote: lofthouse @ September 5 2013, 7:40 PM BSTLet's hope he gets sent down and gets to share a cell with some psychotic rapey bastardme
Have you ever considered internet dating?
Can anyone explain why a chemical attack on unfortunate civilians in Syria is massively worse - for Britain - than the possibility that Syria will be attacked in what could be western military support for Al Qaeda?
Is it that any risk of Al Qaeda being the perpetrators - and future beneficiaries - is considered by the PM to be trivial? Why aren't Obama, Clegg, the French, Boris and Miliband's Defence Spokesman bothered either?
Don't over think this situation
The governments of the US and her allies are infested with lying blood thirsty war mongering evil shitheads who need to rot in hell
They always always always have been and they always always always always will be
Just keep your head down, thank God your comfy in your safe European home and one day when you die you'll be free from this cess pit of filth we call Earth
Quote: lofthouse @ September 5 2013, 11:56 PM BSTDon't over think this situation
The governments of the US and her allies are infested with lying blood thirsty war mongering evil shitheads who need to rot in hell
They always always always have been and they always always always always will be
Just keep your head down, thank God your comfy in your safe European home and one day when you die you'll be free from this cess pit of filth we call Earth
To be frank, I'd feel safer in Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, etc.
Or Britain in the past.
I feel we are living in a country run by thugs.
Deciding whether to go to war - or assist in war - should be based on a two hour television programme with the PM and a telephone vote. The programme shouldn't ask the PM why. It should ask him what he knows.
If Cameron knows all of the distinctions between Sunnis and Shi'ites, Christians and atheists in Syria, that would be something. But how do we know if he knows anything about them? And what's the end game?
Ohh who knows
Basically it's the age old story
The white man is disease
He wants everything
Money , land, power , oil, gold - anything that's not nailed down
And it's 100% irrelevant how many innocent people get butchered in the process
All this bullshit about Syria doing this and doing that and chemical attacks is all horse shit
'We' want control of the Middle East and all it's resources
'We' are no better than the f**king Nazis
At least the nazis were honest about what they wanted and who they hated
'We' cover it all up in lies and bollocks
'We' aren't trying to police the world - 'we' want to control and run it
I think it's a Shi'ite / Sunni affair that we shouldn't go sticking our cock in.
Quote: lofthouse @ September 6 2013, 12:16 AM BSTOhh who knows
Basically it's the age old story
The white man is disease
He wants everything
Money , land, power , oil, gold - anything that's not nailed down
And it's 100% irrelevant how many innocent people get butchered in the process
All this bullshit about Syria doing this and doing that and chemical attacks is all horse shit
'We' want control of the Middle East and all it's resources
'We' are no better than the f**king Nazis
At least the nazis were honest about what they wanted and who they hated
'We' cover it all up in lies and bollocks
'We' aren't trying to police the world - 'we' want to control and run it
Well, that's all atrocious but it is even worse when it fails.
How much money would you put on Syria becoming the next state of the USA and how much on, say, Israel and Syria in the turmoil blowing each other to smithereens? I'd go for the latter if I was looking to bet.
Russia and China will be delighted of course.
Meanwhile Rifkind is concerned that our so-called inaction will seem weak and lead to a Falklands invasion. Funny that, as having all of our military free should help ensure there's less opportunity surely.
Are these people just styooopid?
The Tories would get erections if the argies tried it on
Best thing that ever happened for thatcher in her entire worthless career
Quote: lofthouse @ September 6 2013, 12:27 AM BSTThe Tories would get erections if the argies tried it on
Best thing that ever happened for thatcher in her entire worthless career
Maybe that's it.
Supposedly tie all of the military up in Syria to trigger a Falklands war. Two days of it they originally said. Just enough time for Argentina to try something. Unrealistically, they felt resources could then be switched over there.
In other words, there was probably a question in coalition heads. The risk of WW3 - no that won't happen they thought - or a Labour victory in 2015? They chose the first obviously.
Hah. That's what Parliament has prevented for now. No wonder he's livid. Clegg too. And Rifkind in turning the argument around has let the cat out of the bag.