England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

With separate forums for other sports, TV and films and General chat you can talk about whatever takes your fancy
User avatar
Booji Boy
International
Posts: 28192
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: RE: Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Booji Boy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:50 am

Garry Murphy wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Garry Murphy wrote:
ifm wrote: I don't think you understand what a contradiction is, a contradiction is for example claiming you would have no issue looking people you had slagged off on the internet in the eye and repeating it to their face but then sending your wife to the door while you hide under the bed.
:DDD: :DDD: :DDD: :DDD:

you actually believed that.
I thought the part where they said the house was in dublin might have been a clue it was a wind up

priceless
Oh Garry, maybe the tale of him knocking your door is untrue (i highly doubt it) but he definitely knows your address (i do too ;-) ), your wifes business address petal and everything else about you.
Wow

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Typical IFM, Incapable of admitting he is wrong....ever.
Will continue to make wild claims rather than admit he was played like a sucker.

I must have some house , where my living room is in Cork but the front door is in Dublin :DDD: :DDD: :DDD: :DDD:
Its the bit about him saying he knows your wifes work address that I was wowing at. Not many people go as low as that.

User avatar
Booji Boy
International
Posts: 28192
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Booji Boy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:51 am

BlueSpark wrote:Magnificent.
Glad I unlocked the thread at the request of Booji Boy

You are welcome ;-)

User avatar
ifm
International
Posts: 19604
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:18 am

Re: RE: Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by ifm » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:03 am

Booji Boy wrote:
Garry Murphy wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Garry Murphy wrote:
:DDD: :DDD: :DDD: :DDD:

you actually believed that.
I thought the part where they said the house was in dublin might have been a clue it was a wind up

priceless
Oh Garry, maybe the tale of him knocking your door is untrue (i highly doubt it) but he definitely knows your address (i do too ;-) ), your wifes business address petal and everything else about you.
Wow

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Typical IFM, Incapable of admitting he is wrong....ever.
Will continue to make wild claims rather than admit he was played like a sucker.

I must have some house , where my living room is in Cork but the front door is in Dublin :DDD: :DDD: :DDD: :DDD:
Its the bit about him saying he knows your wifes work address that I was wowing at. Not many people go as low as that.
I was merely proving to Garry that i know he is lying/deflecting about this, he has now convinced me that he did get a visit and hid while his wife was sent to the door.
What i don't understand, and maybe Garry is too thick to realise, is that by denying it and calling him a liar is likely to force him to prove it by publishing his address, something Garry is terrified of.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"

Madsocks

Skewball
International
Posts: 6503
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:41 am
Location: Somerset

Re: RE: Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Skewball » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:11 am

Booji Boy wrote:
Garry Murphy wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Garry Murphy wrote:
:DDD: :DDD: :DDD: :DDD:

you actually believed that.
I thought the part where they said the house was in dublin might have been a clue it was a wind up

priceless
Oh Garry, maybe the tale of him knocking your door is untrue (i highly doubt it) but he definitely knows your address (i do too ;-) ), your wifes business address petal and everything else about you.
Wow

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Typical IFM, Incapable of admitting he is wrong....ever.
Will continue to make wild claims rather than admit he was played like a sucker.

I must have some house , where my living room is in Cork but the front door is in Dublin :DDD: :DDD: :DDD: :DDD:
Its the bit about him saying he knows your wifes work address that I was wowing at. Not many people go as low as that.
doesn't suprise me with IFM, he loves having information about people and showng off about it. Sad really. Occasionally though it catches up with him
(Kev Dowling :DDD: :DDD: )

User avatar
Booji Boy
International
Posts: 28192
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Booji Boy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:31 am

Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

User avatar
ifm
International
Posts: 19604
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:18 am

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by ifm » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:46 am

Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"

Madsocks

User avatar
DavidOwen67
International
Posts: 6886
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:29 am
Location: Nantwich
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by DavidOwen67 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:54 am

ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
Whilst i think religion and its rules, including dress codes, are just silly the issue is that lots of banks got robbed by people using crash helmets and balaclavas to hide their faces.

No-one ever robbed a bank using a burka as disguise.

It's about why you'd wear one in a bank. Helmets etc for robbery, burkas for silly religious persecution.

User avatar
ifm
International
Posts: 19604
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:18 am

Re: RE: Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by ifm » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:59 am

DavidOwen67 wrote:
ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
Whilst i think religion and its rules, including dress codes, are just silly the issue is that lots of banks got robbed by people using crash helmets and balaclavas to hide their faces.

No-one ever robbed a bank using a burka as disguise.

It's about why you'd wear one in a bank. Helmets etc for robbery, burkas for silly religious persecution.
Untrue.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"

Madsocks

User avatar
DavidOwen67
International
Posts: 6886
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:29 am
Location: Nantwich
Contact:

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by DavidOwen67 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:01 am

Here we go......

There'll be one somewhere. Probably Pakistan.....

User avatar
ifm
International
Posts: 19604
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:18 am

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by ifm » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:02 am

DavidOwen67 wrote:Here we go......

There'll be one somewhere. Probably Pakistan.....
A bit closer to home, the point is criminals will use any loophole to gain an advantage and they do.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"

Madsocks

User avatar
DavidOwen67
International
Posts: 6886
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:29 am
Location: Nantwich
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by DavidOwen67 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:08 am

ifm wrote:
DavidOwen67 wrote:Here we go......

There'll be one somewhere. Probably Pakistan.....
A bit closer to home, the point is criminals will use any loophole to gain an advantage and they do.
Sounds like you got away with it. :D

User avatar
Booji Boy
International
Posts: 28192
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: RE: Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Booji Boy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:18 am

ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
The rest of my questions?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Skewball
International
Posts: 6503
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:41 am
Location: Somerset

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Skewball » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:30 am

Policing (and. funding) is irrelevant. If it was law then it would be policed, same as the other hundreds of laws, it would not need special policing, They said the same about Smoking in pubs and just about every law that comes in. Its a moot point.

User avatar
nikkiboy
International
Posts: 29074
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:34 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by nikkiboy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:06 am

ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
I agree with that and the post office used to tell us to refuse to serve anyone who has their face covered but I remember a case where the postmaster refused to do a financial transaction (which required ID) for a customer in a burka, the PC brigade were up in arms but if it is your rule that the face MUST be uncovered then there should be no exceptions. I think at the time the workaround was that someone in a burka should be served by a female member of staff to whom she could reveal her face.

The changing and suspension of laws and rules for the sake of religion should be stopped, be it wearing a St. Christopher in a no jewellery environment or allowing sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword which resembles a dagger when anyone else would be arrested.

To answer Col's point there should be a law that they be made to take them off when asked to remove them by a copper or when they enter any shop or library etc. the former being an offence the latter meaning that they were refused entry.
As for funding then issue an on the spot fine to those that refuse plus court costs should they not pay up.
Ginge wrote:the cancer has been cut from the BDO
21st April 2016 7:01am

oche balboa
International
Posts: 10009
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by oche balboa » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:52 pm

Good to see Islamist apologist David Owen having his say
TSOD World Grand Prix Prediction winner 2017.

User avatar
Booji Boy
International
Posts: 28192
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Booji Boy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:54 pm

nikkiboy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
I agree with that and the post office used to tell us to refuse to serve anyone who has their face covered but I remember a case where the postmaster refused to do a financial transaction (which required ID) for a customer in a burka, the PC brigade were up in arms but if it is your rule that the face MUST be uncovered then there should be no exceptions. I think at the time the workaround was that someone in a burka should be served by a female member of staff to whom she could reveal her face.

The changing and suspension of laws and rules for the sake of religion should be stopped, be it wearing a St. Christopher in a no jewellery environment or allowing sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword which resembles a dagger when anyone else would be arrested.

To answer Col's point there should be a law that they be made to take them off when asked to remove them by a copper or when they enter any shop or library etc. the former being an offence the latter meaning that they were refused entry.
As for funding then issue an on the spot fine to those that refuse plus court costs should they not pay up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... their-face

Does that not answer that Nik?

I was more talking about funding for all the additional arrests and processing of arrests that would be made at edl and anti fascist marches etc. Helluva lot of folk wear masks at those gatherings.

User avatar
ifm
International
Posts: 19604
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:18 am

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by ifm » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:57 pm

Booji Boy wrote:
nikkiboy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
I agree with that and the post office used to tell us to refuse to serve anyone who has their face covered but I remember a case where the postmaster refused to do a financial transaction (which required ID) for a customer in a burka, the PC brigade were up in arms but if it is your rule that the face MUST be uncovered then there should be no exceptions. I think at the time the workaround was that someone in a burka should be served by a female member of staff to whom she could reveal her face.

The changing and suspension of laws and rules for the sake of religion should be stopped, be it wearing a St. Christopher in a no jewellery environment or allowing sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword which resembles a dagger when anyone else would be arrested.

To answer Col's point there should be a law that they be made to take them off when asked to remove them by a copper or when they enter any shop or library etc. the former being an offence the latter meaning that they were refused entry.
As for funding then issue an on the spot fine to those that refuse plus court costs should they not pay up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... their-face

Does that not answer that Nik?

I was more talking about funding for all the additional arrests and processing of arrests that would be made at edl and anti fascist marches etc. Helluva lot of folk wear masks at those gatherings.
Don't forget all the opposing marches organised to clash with them both politically and physically.
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"

Madsocks

User avatar
nikkiboy
International
Posts: 29074
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:34 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by nikkiboy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:14 pm

Booji Boy wrote:
nikkiboy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
I agree with that and the post office used to tell us to refuse to serve anyone who has their face covered but I remember a case where the postmaster refused to do a financial transaction (which required ID) for a customer in a burka, the PC brigade were up in arms but if it is your rule that the face MUST be uncovered then there should be no exceptions. I think at the time the workaround was that someone in a burka should be served by a female member of staff to whom she could reveal her face.

The changing and suspension of laws and rules for the sake of religion should be stopped, be it wearing a St. Christopher in a no jewellery environment or allowing sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword which resembles a dagger when anyone else would be arrested.

To answer Col's point there should be a law that they be made to take them off when asked to remove them by a copper or when they enter any shop or library etc. the former being an offence the latter meaning that they were refused entry.
As for funding then issue an on the spot fine to those that refuse plus court costs should they not pay up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... their-face

Does that not answer that Nik?

I was more talking about funding for all the additional arrests and processing of arrests that would be made at edl and anti fascist marches etc. Helluva lot of folk wear masks at those gatherings.
Serious question Col, as a man who is all for freedom of people and minorities as we have discussed many times, do you see the burka as a woman expressing her love for her religion or as a woman being subjugated by a man into obeying his command to wear it. I have spoken to muslim women who like wearing it and some who hate it but are basically forced to do so, mainly from the Somali muslim community I will say.

As for the EDL marchers then if they are so proud of what and who they are then they should show their faces and if requested by a copper to remove it then they should all do so or be arrested. The cost of initially policing a face covering law will be higher in the first few years but will reduce crime and help police to identify potential trouble makers more quickly so overall I believe it could actually save money.
Ginge wrote:the cancer has been cut from the BDO
21st April 2016 7:01am

User avatar
Booji Boy
International
Posts: 28192
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Booji Boy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:15 pm

ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:
nikkiboy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
I agree with that and the post office used to tell us to refuse to serve anyone who has their face covered but I remember a case where the postmaster refused to do a financial transaction (which required ID) for a customer in a burka, the PC brigade were up in arms but if it is your rule that the face MUST be uncovered then there should be no exceptions. I think at the time the workaround was that someone in a burka should be served by a female member of staff to whom she could reveal her face.

The changing and suspension of laws and rules for the sake of religion should be stopped, be it wearing a St. Christopher in a no jewellery environment or allowing sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword which resembles a dagger when anyone else would be arrested.

To answer Col's point there should be a law that they be made to take them off when asked to remove them by a copper or when they enter any shop or library etc. the former being an offence the latter meaning that they were refused entry.
As for funding then issue an on the spot fine to those that refuse plus court costs should they not pay up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... their-face

Does that not answer that Nik?

I was more talking about funding for all the additional arrests and processing of arrests that would be made at edl and anti fascist marches etc. Helluva lot of folk wear masks at those gatherings.
Don't forget all the opposing marches organised to clash with them both politically and physically.
My statement above covers that.

User avatar
Booji Boy
International
Posts: 28192
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: England Chairman in Offensive (to some) Rant

Post by Booji Boy » Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:26 pm

nikkiboy wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:
nikkiboy wrote:
ifm wrote:
Booji Boy wrote:Just getting back to the debate sort of.

I assume that those against the burka would also want all the masks worn by left and right wing activists banned?

Secondly, where would the funding come from to police this?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
You cannot walk into a bank with a crash helmet on, you cannot walk into an airport with a balaclava on, why should you be allowed to do the same with a burka?
It makes no sense.
I agree with that and the post office used to tell us to refuse to serve anyone who has their face covered but I remember a case where the postmaster refused to do a financial transaction (which required ID) for a customer in a burka, the PC brigade were up in arms but if it is your rule that the face MUST be uncovered then there should be no exceptions. I think at the time the workaround was that someone in a burka should be served by a female member of staff to whom she could reveal her face.

The changing and suspension of laws and rules for the sake of religion should be stopped, be it wearing a St. Christopher in a no jewellery environment or allowing sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword which resembles a dagger when anyone else would be arrested.

To answer Col's point there should be a law that they be made to take them off when asked to remove them by a copper or when they enter any shop or library etc. the former being an offence the latter meaning that they were refused entry.
As for funding then issue an on the spot fine to those that refuse plus court costs should they not pay up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... their-face

Does that not answer that Nik?

I was more talking about funding for all the additional arrests and processing of arrests that would be made at edl and anti fascist marches etc. Helluva lot of folk wear masks at those gatherings.
Serious question Col, as a man who is all for freedom of people and minorities as we have discussed many times, do you see the burka as a woman expressing her love for her religion or as a woman being subjugated by a man into obeying his command to wear it. I have spoken to muslim women who like wearing it and some who hate it but are basically forced to do so, mainly from the Somali muslim community I will say.

As for the EDL marchers then if they are so proud of what and who they are then they should show their faces and if requested by a copper to remove it then they should all do so or be arrested. The cost of initially policing a face covering law will be higher in the first few years but will reduce crime and help police to identify potential trouble makers more quickly so overall I believe it could actually save money.
Very good question Nik, and one you would think I would ethically struggle to answer.

My understanding is that the holy text of the religion they choose to follows advises them to wear the burka or they choose to interpret the text as advising them to wear the burka. I have zero problem with that at all.

The subjugation argument is a difficult one. Many muslim women have stood up against the wearing of the burka and I support them fully, but until there is unity among all then I have to respect that it is in my opinion the womens choice to follow that religion and thereby abide by the text as they interpret it.

Is not also true that in more moderate muslim communities the wearing of the burka is a choice?

Post Reply

Return to “General Non Darts Discussion”