Bluespunk

20 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

That is a ridiculous comment you have made,

I would say the it represents the comment spewed up by the bigot quoted in the headline...

15 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Even Andrew has a better chance at the Throne than Harry.

He really doesn't, thankfully.

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

I must have missed that. Please excuse me but could you please answer again.

 

No. Read the thread. 

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

Here is the question......would you find it an acceptable situation where female members of your family told you there was someone in the same, female only changing room they were in who was naked and showing a penis? YES or NO.

As long as people are in the changing room they are entitled to be in, I’m fine with it.

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

If you don't wish to repeat yourself, please provide a link showing where you did answer. Please note I say "answer" not "reply", as I did previously.

No. I have answered all questions related to my posts. Read the thread if you wish to see them. 

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

A NO would have been expected. A YES totally unexpected.

 

However, in your case, you say youve ansered but you haven't, as expected. A reply that basically makes all of your comments on the matter inane.

A: First sentence you: I responded succinctly. 
 

B: Third sentence you: you are incorrect as I did answer. 
 

C; Final sentence you: nonsense but keep telling yourself that if it keeps you happy. 

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Yeah, it really is.

 

You might not mind if your wife or daughter is forced to share a bathroom or a changing room with a person who has a penis. You might not think women have a right to choose not to do so. You might even not care if vulnerable young people with body image issues are convinced to have life ruining operations only to go on to regret them when they are older. However, luckily, some people do care.

My answer remains the same, enough of your hyperbole...

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Excellent.

 

You clearly forget your own principles. You have, in the past, accused me of misquoting you by only quoting part of your post.

 

It's good to know that will be acceptable in the future.

 

Thanks.

a headline is just that, a headline.

His entire quote was added in the first paragraph and made absolutely no difference to the nature of the hate contained in his words.

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

It's about protecting people and allowing them to live normal lives.

Nah, it really isn’t. 

5 hours ago, patman30 said:

he didn't say that
watch the clip.

“Michael Knowles Says Transgenderism Must Be ‘Eradicated’ at CPAC”

24 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

Not probably..of course they are her property.

One always says ''probably'' due to the trolls active on such threads...

1 hour ago, transam said:

Can't hear anything my end...............????

Quelle Surprise...

"There are none so  deaf as those who will not hear.''

Matthew Henry

That screeching sound you can hear is the bottom of the barrel being scraped...

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

Since the council could not locate or supply any legal documents to support the fact of a shared path, it is difficult to understand how the judge arrived at this conclusion.

Yet they did.

13 minutes ago, MartinL said:

Nonetheless the judge mistakenly ruled it was a shared path.

Corrected it for you.

Also, that 'ruling' was on a matter that's outside of his powers therefore invalid.

No need to correct anything as my original statement was correct. 

42 minutes ago, MartinL said:

The judge doesn't have the power to make that decision. It's a local authority responsibility. The local authority confirmed at trial that they are unsure of the situation in that vicinity. But no markings or signs there on that side of the road - there are a number of signs on the opposite side.

 

Having no signs on the side of the road where the incident occurred while they ARE present on the opposite side suggests that one side is a shared path while the other side is not.

Nonetheless the judge ruled it was a shared path. 

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Complaints from the tax payer? 

 

Why?

 

The Crown paid for it.

Nonetheless I know people who were not happy about the cost. As I said, not me…not interested either way. 

16 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, there were no complaints about the cost of the funeral from the UK public

Really, you have spoken to every single person in the U.K. about the costs?
 

Because while I have refrained from commenting upon it as I work overseas and it wasn’t my taxes paying for it, I do know people in the U.K. who were not happy about the cost. 

Just now, rankric said:

I think a few people manage maybe 30-40 profiles. 

 

What makes you believe that is not the case?

 

 

 

What?

35 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

And the Female in the photo wasn't exactly a Child, she was 17 years old and she's never been identified and the photo was supposed to be from 20 years ago .

   Its not as if Andrew has a history of fondling pre teen children

 

You’re rambling again.