Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita_Sahgal#A...d_Cageprisoners  I see that Amnesty has links to "Britain's most famous Taliban supporter".  They suspended their head of gender unit for speaking out about it last year.  I'm sure some will think the Taliban are a force for good as they are the enemies of the United States.  Sorry, but the whole organisation seems dubious to me. I imagine that the two people being paid off have been paid to ensure their silence.    Anyone going to argue in favour of the Taliban? It seems that human rights abuses are acceptable (or at least less unacceptable) when they are carried out by the enemies of the Western World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm sure some will think the Taliban are a force for good as they are the enemies of the United States. They'd certainly pull the plug on that dirty, legacy-tainting Office remake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita_Sahgal#A...d_Cageprisoners I see that Amnesty has links to "Britain's most famous Taliban supporter".  They suspended their head of gender unit for speaking out about it last year.  I'm sure some will think the Taliban are a force for good as they are the enemies of the United States.  Sorry, but the whole organisation seems dubious to me. I imagine that the two people being paid off have been paid to ensure their silence.    Anyone going to argue in favour of the Taliban? It seems that human rights abuses are acceptable (or at least less unacceptable) when they are carried out by the enemies of the Western World.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 Interesting fact: claiming that an organization has paid off staff to ensure their silence over links to a terrorist group is a defamatory statement. As it's not a matter of opinion, a person who made that claim in any context other than accurately reporting a court or parliamentary proceeding would either have to prove on the balance of probabilities that it was accurate or would be guilty of the criminal offense of libel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) ^ Indeed, John.  I'll just quote Happ's post just in case he goes back and deletes it.  EDIT - I normally stay out of the politics thread and leave that to the grown-ups whilst I busy myself with football, cricket, films and telly. Important stuff.  However, I do know some people who work for Amnesty International and I have also done some temp work for them (in conjunction with Friends Of The Earth and RSPCA) in the past. I think they would be a little surprised at the attitude being taken by Happ Hazard here, mainly because he seems so sure of himself and what he is talking about.  Reading back through the last few pages though, it's clear that I don't think anyone would bother themselves pursuing a libel action against such a clueless little turd. Maybe that's what Happ is hoping for - if he looks such an outright clueless, feckless and totally bumbling idiot and sometimes outright fibber that no-one will bother with pulling him up on some of his more outrageous nonsense.  He's pulled it off flawlessly. So much so that he actually makes Dynamite Duane seem somewhat less than a complete fruit-loop. That said, if it isn't a ballsy act for a message board and this is what he is really like, then I think he should keep an eye out for the white van.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita_Sahgal#A...d_Cageprisoners I see that Amnesty has links to "Britain's most famous Taliban supporter".  They suspended their head of gender unit for speaking out about it last year.  I'm sure some will think the Taliban are a force for good as they are the enemies of the United States.  Sorry, but the whole organisation seems dubious to me. I imagine that the two people being paid off have been paid to ensure their silence.    Anyone going to argue in favour of the Taliban? It seems that human rights abuses are acceptable (or at least less unacceptable) when they are carried out by the enemies of the Western World. Edited March 8, 2011 by Gladstone Small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm still petty enough to point out that criminal libel was abolished on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. And even if that were not the case, balance of probabilities wouldn't have applied in a criminal matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm not even going to dignify the last few comments with a response, other than to say I will continue to post my views, and ignore the pathetic responses to them. I thought the Guardian CiF, but you do get at least some reasonable posts on there, from left and right was bad, but this thread just confirms that the left is filled with the most infantile, petulant, whiny crybabies imaginable. You are unable to form a coherent argument so you resort to throwing out insults in every single response. Does it make you feel any better? You are wrong, and what's more, I think most of you know it deep down. Â My comment about Amnesty stands. I think they're as corrupt as any of the regimes they rail against. If they want to start suing people for posts on wrestling message boards, they can start with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm still petty enough to point out that criminal libel was abolished on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. And even if that were not the case, balance of probabilities wouldn't have applied in a criminal matter. Â Christ, you're bang on. I don't know where I got "criminal" from. In a totally unconnected fact, I've just realised it's 15 years since I did media law. Â Moral here is to double check facts before you post rather than just post stuff you either vaguely remember or have imagined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary v1 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I thought libel was a civil matter? Also would AA not have to show that they've been damaged in some way by the lie. Seeing as Happ clearly has no credibility I reckon he'd be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Would the Daily Mail allow people to post much the same thing as I have said if it constituted libel? You would think they would know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 I thought libel was a civil matter? Also would AA not have to show that they've been damaged in some way by the lie. Seeing as Happ clearly has no credibility I reckon he'd be ok. Â Precisely, he's an idiot, and he knows that he can get away with it. Â Just for the record, Happ, not that it's any of your business, I'm not a 'lefty' you utter gimp. Change the fucking record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm not even going to dignify the last few comments with a response, other than to say I will continue to post my views, and ignore the pathetic responses to them. I thought the Guardian CiF, but you do get at least some reasonable posts on there, from left and right was bad, but this thread just confirms that the left is filled with the most infantile, petulant, whiny crybabies imaginable. You are unable to form a coherent argument so you resort to throwing out insults in every single response. Does it make you feel any better? You are wrong, and what's more, I think most of you know it deep down. Â My comment about Amnesty stands. I think they're as corrupt as any of the regimes they rail against. If they want to start suing people for posts on wrestling message boards, they can start with me. Â Oh, fuck off. You've had several responses cutting you right off, that's the only reason you're ignoring them. You can try and couch your bullshit in reasonable language and hide behind pseudo-civility as much as you like, but you're beaten and you damn well know it. Â Know how the mediaeval churches used to call things they couldn't control or discredit "the Devil's work", and how certain Americans call the same "unAmerican"? That's you with your "lefty"-chucking. You actually know sod-all what it means to be left-wing, you just use it as a catch-all retreat like a baby chucking his toys out of the pram. Â What's even more ridiculous about this is that it's not like it's the first time for this; you've done it countless times in On-Topic, you've had your face ground right into the floor by plenty of people proving you wrong, and you still pop up to parrot the same shite over and over again. Â In fact, I think I'll bring back the picture Supremo used to describe you and arguments: Â Â Happ Hazard, the Black Knight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Happ, everyone has tried to engage you in debate but you are refusing to even look at the evidence while throwing out extremely dodgy accusations with no evidence whatsoever. People can only bang their heads against a wall for so long before they get pissed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Yeah, Happ Hazzard is one very well fed troll in this thread. Shame he is spoiling it for everyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'll just say one thing. I've had 3 PMs in the last week or so from people that agree with me but won't come on the politics thread because of what a bear-pit it is, with anyone whose opinion differs substantially from the liberal hegemony being attacked from all sides, and not even in a constructive way, but with offensive ephicets thrown in for good measure. Â As far as getting "ground into the floor" in on-topic discussion, when did this happen? The most common argument was whether WWE should turn Cena heel or stop pushing him, and I don't think that's in doubt anymore, turning him heel would have been an absolute disaster as he's been their cash-cow for the past 6 years or so and no-one else has been anywhere close in rivalling him for popularity. To have turned him heel at the time it was being argued would have been as bad a decision as turning Austin heel in 2001, which was by far the worst decision WWE ever made. Â But that is not an argument for this thread. Â My opinion of AA stands. I do not think any amount of evidence would be enough to change some people's minds. Politics has become like religion or football where it is just tribal and no amount of reason or personal experience would convince a lot of people's mind. Their political views are so wrapped up in their self-image that they simply wouldn't be able to face the world if they were forced to admit they were once wrong. I voted Labour in 1997. I considered myself a liberal, believed mass immigration was a good thing, the whole kit & caboodle. Then I grew up and realised the reality of the world. Some people have a lot of growing up to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts