big mickey Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Because there is no need for violence, and the majority of the group are against it. And to be fair we are nowhere near as violent as its made out. If we were we'd have been delt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I've seen so many newpsaper reports of edl members being nicked it's pretty pointless to just post a few here. But obviously what you've just said is simply a ridiculous lie, the groups involved in loads of violence, and has more than enough prison sentences, arrest, and you tube evidence to show this. If you needed any more proof you could just look at the comments of EDL members on your facebook wall. Oh and your girlfriend beating police woman assaulting leader is about to get sentenced due to breaking his parol conditions, conditions he received for being involved in violent conduct. Come on mickey, you're not that thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 26, 2011 I've seen so many newpsaper reports of edl members being nicked it's pretty pointless to just post a few here. But obviously what you've just said is simply a ridiculous lie, the groups involved in loads of violence, and has more than enough prison sentences, arrest, and you tube evidence to show this. If you needed any more proof you could just look at the comments of EDL members on your facebook wall. Oh and your girlfriend beating police woman assaulting leader is about to get sentenced due to breaking his parol conditions, conditions he received for being involved in violent conduct. Â Oh dear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Not quite gladstone, he's not allowed to discuss it, others aren't allowed to goad him into discussing it, the rest of the board wasn't banned from mentioning it. Whether or not he used the title, he was discussing it, I just responded. You could probably get him and david suspended if you desperately wanted to though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 26, 2011 Not quite gladstone, he's not allowed to discuss it, others aren't allowed to goad him into discussing it, the rest of the board wasn't banned from mentioning it. Whether or not he used the title, he was discussing it, I just responded. You could probably get him and david suspended if you desperately wanted to though. Â I'd say that you are quite blatantly goading him. Plus pretty much everyone else has avoided using those letters in the spirit of fairplay. Except you. Tsk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldy Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Why can't you talk about them? A bit shit, that. Censorship of a group of any sort just for discussion is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Hee, bless you gladstone. Dead mike posted this  It seems you have a very 'pick & mix' attitute to the EDL. As soon as anyone points out any instances of violence, thuggery or in this case, proposed violence you seem to admonish it & distance yourself. Surely as a 'member' of a group you're either in or out? Daz suggested several think tanks & alternatives to the EDL yet you seemingly ignored him. It's the equivalent of being a member of the boy scouts & saying 'I don Edited October 26, 2011 by Kiffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted October 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Why can't you talk about them? A bit shit, that. Censorship of a group of any sort just for discussion is ridiculous. Â Because several unrelated threads in the space of a few days descended into nothing more than back-and-forth about the group. Mickey must have made dozens of posts about them. Â It's not permanently banned but he needs to go through a stage (30 days, I think) of not mentioning them to provide some form of respite for the other discussions that would otherwise have been waylaid. No-one is allowed to goad him into either. Edited October 26, 2011 by Ronnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 26, 2011 Hee, bless you gladstone. Dead mike posted this It seems you have a very 'pick & mix' attitute to the EDL. As soon as anyone points out any instances of violence, thuggery or in this case, proposed violence you seem to admonish it & distance yourself. Surely as a 'member' of a group you're either in or out? Daz suggested several think tanks & alternatives to the EDL yet you seemingly ignored him. It's the equivalent of being a member of the boy scouts & saying 'I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Because there is no need for violence, and the majority of the group are against it. And to be fair we are nowhere near as violent as its made out. If we were we'd have been delt with. The thing is Mickey, from what you've posted in the various off-topic threads it would appear that you don't entirely buy into the whole EDL gig. Would you agree with me on that? Â I can't help but wonder if there aren't other political parties out there that would provide a better platform for you? If you don't condone the violence you really aren't going to get anywhere with the EDL. Â It's a bit like an Irish Republican in the 80's claiming to be a supporter (or member) of the IRA, but refusing to condone the violence they carried out. It was always possible to be an Irish Republican without taking it that one step too far. Â Couldn't you simply be an English nationalist without being attached to a group as odious as the EDL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 And that's fine old boy, a valid and reasonable opinion. Nonetheless, david asked him about the edl, he spoke about them, dead mike asked something else, mickey made up some lies about them being non-violent, and I pointed out those were lies. That's not me goading big mickey into talking about the EDL (which wouldn't be allowed) that's mickey talking about the EDL already (which isn't allowed) and me noticing it. Now I figured that you'd have the mental capacity to see that, and therefore it followed that if you were saying it was something else, it'd be down to your dislike of me for being shit and deliberately contrary (rather than accidently contrary, which is always embarassing). But I am happy to admit I may have entirely misjudged that, and you may just be a bit slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 A senior Liberal Democrat has described a proposal to scrap unfair dismissal and allow managers the right to sack unproductive staff without explanation as "madness". In a report seen by the Daily Telegraph and commissioned by Downing Street, the venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft suggests British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so companies can sack them and find more capable replacements, saying this would boost economic growth. The document has generated a furious response from trade unions.  Downing Street declined to comment on the contents of the report other than to say it was not "a final document".  But Norman Lamb, chief adviser and parliamentary private secretary to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said taking away protection from unfair dismissal would damage the economy because it would increase workers' fears that they could be arbitrarily sacked.  Lamb, a former employment lawyer, said: "I think it would be madness to throw away all employment protection in the way that's proposed, and it could be very damaging to consumer confidence.  "What we are talking about here is every single employee in the land being in a position where their employer could arbitrarily terminate their employment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yes, the major problem with the current recession and unemployment crisis we have is that not enough people have been sacked. Bravo coalition government, bra fucking vo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators neil Posted October 26, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2011 Was gonna ignore this, but then after having to read Kiffy's awful posts I decided to suspend him for the EDL goading anyway. Fucking hell is he dross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted October 26, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2011 Was gonna ignore this, but then after having to read Kiffy's awful posts I decided to suspend him for the EDL goading anyway. Fucking hell is he dross. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts