Guest pelmetman Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Share Posted June 2, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-02 12:38 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... Seems all those years of getting away with sex assaults on underage white girls because of PC madness isn't enough for Veronica ... Seems very strange she doesn't seem to have an issue with others accused of sex crimes turning up at court being reported on MSM TV which has much bigger viewing numbers than Tommy gets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-02 12:38 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... I can't answer the question you posed Dave because I have no clue about whether there were any reporting restrictions on the high-profile cases to which you refer. Boring as it maybe I will once again return to the fact that if the reporting conditions on the trial we are discussing are in excess of the Court's jurisdiction and offend one of the most important principles of our law, which is that there should be open justice then there are lawful ways in which anyone can challenge such restrictions. I entirely accept that there should be no favourable treatment towards any particular group/groups within our society when it comes to the application of that principle. I just wish that those who have concerns that this principle has has been undermined in this instance would go to law rather than "doorstep" defendants who have not as yet been convicted. Mr Robinson has big following, it is not beyond contemplation that he could have funded any challenge to the imposition of the reporting restrictions that were imposed in respect of this case rather than resort to the behaviour that put him in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 7:05 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 12:38 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... I can't answer the question you posed Dave because I have no clue about whether there were any reporting restrictions on the high-profile cases to which you refer. Boring as it maybe I will once again return to the fact that if the reporting conditions on the trial we are discussing are in excess of the Court's jurisdiction and offend one of the most important principles of our law, which is that there should be open justice then there are lawful ways in which anyone can challenge such restrictions. I entirely accept that there should be no favourable treatment towards any particular group/groups within our society when it comes to the application of that principle. I just wish that those who have concerns that this principle has has been undermined in this instance would go to law rather than "doorstep" defendants who have not as yet been convicted. Mr Robinson has big following, it is not beyond contemplation that he could have funded any challenge to the imposition of the reporting restrictions that were imposed in respect of this case rather than resort to the behaviour that put him in jail. I guess we'll have to wait for the next Asian/Muslim grooming gang trial, to see if the authorities will try to carry that out in secret to? ;-) ........... Then we will know for deffo its one law for them and another for us White Brits >:-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-03 8:38 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 7:05 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 12:38 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... I can't answer the question you posed Dave because I have no clue about whether there were any reporting restrictions on the high-profile cases to which you refer. Boring as it maybe I will once again return to the fact that if the reporting conditions on the trial we are discussing are in excess of the Court's jurisdiction and offend one of the most important principles of our law, which is that there should be open justice then there are lawful ways in which anyone can challenge such restrictions. I entirely accept that there should be no favourable treatment towards any particular group/groups within our society when it comes to the application of that principle. I just wish that those who have concerns that this principle has has been undermined in this instance would go to law rather than "doorstep" defendants who have not as yet been convicted. Mr Robinson has big following, it is not beyond contemplation that he could have funded any challenge to the imposition of the reporting restrictions that were imposed in respect of this case rather than resort to the behaviour that put him in jail. I guess we'll have to wait for the next Asian/Muslim grooming gang trial, to see if the authorities will try to carry that out in secret to? ;-) ........... Then we will know for deffo its one law for them and another for us White Brits >:-) ........ He who is wont to shout loudest does not necessarily know what he’s talking about despite the fact that his motive for doing so is entirely laudable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 6:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 8:38 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 7:05 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 12:38 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... I can't answer the question you posed Dave because I have no clue about whether there were any reporting restrictions on the high-profile cases to which you refer. Boring as it maybe I will once again return to the fact that if the reporting conditions on the trial we are discussing are in excess of the Court's jurisdiction and offend one of the most important principles of our law, which is that there should be open justice then there are lawful ways in which anyone can challenge such restrictions. I entirely accept that there should be no favourable treatment towards any particular group/groups within our society when it comes to the application of that principle. I just wish that those who have concerns that this principle has has been undermined in this instance would go to law rather than "doorstep" defendants who have not as yet been convicted. Mr Robinson has big following, it is not beyond contemplation that he could have funded any challenge to the imposition of the reporting restrictions that were imposed in respect of this case rather than resort to the behaviour that put him in jail. I guess we'll have to wait for the next Asian/Muslim grooming gang trial, to see if the authorities will try to carry that out in secret to? ;-) ........... Then we will know for deffo its one law for them and another for us White Brits >:-) ........ He who is wont to shout loudest does not necessarily know what he’s talking about despite the fact that his motive for doing so is entirely laudable. She who is wont to preach loudest about the law.......have ignored the fact that their laws have proved entirely laughable *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-03 6:35 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 6:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 8:38 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 7:05 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 12:38 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... I can't answer the question you posed Dave because I have no clue about whether there were any reporting restrictions on the high-profile cases to which you refer. Boring as it maybe I will once again return to the fact that if the reporting conditions on the trial we are discussing are in excess of the Court's jurisdiction and offend one of the most important principles of our law, which is that there should be open justice then there are lawful ways in which anyone can challenge such restrictions. I entirely accept that there should be no favourable treatment towards any particular group/groups within our society when it comes to the application of that principle. I just wish that those who have concerns that this principle has has been undermined in this instance would go to law rather than "doorstep" defendants who have not as yet been convicted. Mr Robinson has big following, it is not beyond contemplation that he could have funded any challenge to the imposition of the reporting restrictions that were imposed in respect of this case rather than resort to the behaviour that put him in jail. I guess we'll have to wait for the next Asian/Muslim grooming gang trial, to see if the authorities will try to carry that out in secret to? ;-) ........... Then we will know for deffo its one law for them and another for us White Brits >:-) ........ He who is wont to shout loudest does not necessarily know what he’s talking about despite the fact that his motive for doing so is entirely laudable. Unfortunately those who preach loudest about the law.......have ignored the fact that their laws have proved entirely laughable *-) ........ Not my laws Dave they are the laws of the land we inhabit, imperfect, subject to any change that serves the public interest and which welcome dissent in order that they may be refined and perfected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 6:47 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 6:35 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 6:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 8:38 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 7:05 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 12:38 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:53 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-02 9:36 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-02 9:08 AM Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. pelmetman - 2018-06-02 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-01 2:28 PM I think I likely that you fully understand what’s wrong with Robinson filming and "asking accused but as yet un-convicted men if they have raped young girls" outside a courthouse and then live-streaming it. You’re just playing the idiot “out of devilment” as my old ma used to say. Are the prosecution not going to ask the same question? :-| ........ Yes, that’s why there is no good reason to ask it outside the courthouse. I am struggling to think of any reason why someone do that other than it is their intention to harass and intimidate people who are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise. So the numerous BBC, ITV, newspaper reports about British white child rapists like Glitter, Harris and Bennell before they were convicted is OK?......... Or are only Asian grooming gangs entitled to remain anonymous?........Coz that's what it looks like from where I'm sat :-| ........... This thread isn't about the new reports of the trials of Glitter, Harris and Bennell so how do you think that by not referring to them anyone believes that the reports of their trials were OK? You really are king of the non-sequitur Dave. Looks like your Queen of avoiding the awkward question ;-) ......... I can't answer the question you posed Dave because I have no clue about whether there were any reporting restrictions on the high-profile cases to which you refer. Boring as it maybe I will once again return to the fact that if the reporting conditions on the trial we are discussing are in excess of the Court's jurisdiction and offend one of the most important principles of our law, which is that there should be open justice then there are lawful ways in which anyone can challenge such restrictions. I entirely accept that there should be no favourable treatment towards any particular group/groups within our society when it comes to the application of that principle. I just wish that those who have concerns that this principle has has been undermined in this instance would go to law rather than "doorstep" defendants who have not as yet been convicted. Mr Robinson has big following, it is not beyond contemplation that he could have funded any challenge to the imposition of the reporting restrictions that were imposed in respect of this case rather than resort to the behaviour that put him in jail. I guess we'll have to wait for the next Asian/Muslim grooming gang trial, to see if the authorities will try to carry that out in secret to? ;-) ........... Then we will know for deffo its one law for them and another for us White Brits >:-) ........ He who is wont to shout loudest does not necessarily know what he’s talking about despite the fact that his motive for doing so is entirely laudable. Unfortunately those who preach loudest about the law.......have ignored the fact that their laws have proved entirely laughable *-) ........ Not my laws Dave they are the laws of the land we inhabit, imperfect, subject to any change that serves the public interest and which welcomes dissent in order that it may be refined and perfected. Are they made by folk like me? ;-) ....... NO *-) ....... They're made by folk who think they know how to control folk like me >:-) ........ Fortunately the majority of folk like me know right from wrong.......we also know how those who digress should be treated :-| ........which is not as "VICTIMS" like our so called justice system does >:-( ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Best point you have made all day Dave. Who do our laws serve? What vested interests lie behind them? And how can we continue to make sure that they treat all people as equal under the law? These are huge questions that this forum cannot possibly provide the space needed for a full discussion nor are they likely to be of much interest to all but a few. One day perhaps I might see Horace next to our wheels and we could talk about this for hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:05 PM Best point you have made all day Dave. Who do our laws serve? What vested interests lie behind them? And how can we continue to make sure that they treat all people as equals under the law? Discuss. Well we could start by not giving minority's more rights than the majority :-| ..........ie should Sharia courts be allowed to operate in the UK? ;-) .......... Just askin >:-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Like all religious courts/legal systems be they Greek Orthodox, Jewish or Catholic etc. they are optional and the secular courts are available as an alternative and most legally binding. The biggest challenge is in making sure that people feel safe and supported by choosing the secular courts over the religious ones in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:27 PM Like all religious courts/legal systems be they Greek Orthodox, Jewish or Catholic etc. they are optional and the secular courts are available as an alternative and most legally binding. The biggest challenge is in making sure that people feel safe and supported by choosing the secular courts over the religious ones in some cases. So bigamy is OK if you're a Muslim Brit but not if you're a Christian Brit? ;-) ........ Just askin :D ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:44 PM Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? So if you're a Muslim you can ignore our laws? :-| ..........Isn't that why we are where we are? *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 3, 2018 Author Share Posted June 3, 2018 I have a problem with our laws ... Why is it because of your colour or religion you can seemingly get away with rape of minors for years and years even though the Police and Social Services know all about it yet those from a different background are treated differently though supposedly the same laws apply to them ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-03 7:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:44 PM Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? So if you're a Muslim you can ignore our laws? :-| ..........Isn't that why we are where we are? *-) ......... The freedom to believe whatever you like is a fundamental part of our law but how you behave is subject to the same laws as everyone else. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 3, 2018 Author Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 8:33 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 7:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:44 PM Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? So if you're a Muslim you can ignore our laws? :-| ..........Isn't that why we are where we are? *-) ......... The freedom to believe whatever you like is a fundamental part of our law but how you behave is subject to the same laws as everyone else. It's that simple. Seems the same laws for everyone tend to take a little longer to be acted upon with some of our fellow Brits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 8:33 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 7:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:44 PM Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? So if you're a Muslim you can ignore our laws? :-| ..........Isn't that why we are where we are? *-) ......... The freedom to believe whatever you like is a fundamental part of our law but how you behave is subject to the same laws as everyone else. It's that simple. So why are Muslims allowed to be bigamists if they're subject to the same laws as us? :-| ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-03 8:49 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 8:33 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 7:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:44 PM Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? So if you're a Muslim you can ignore our laws? :-| ..........Isn't that why we are where we are? *-) ......... The freedom to believe whatever you like is a fundamental part of our law but how you behave is subject to the same laws as everyone else. It's that simple. So why are Muslims allowed to be bigamists if they're subject to the same laws as us? :-| ........ Because their religious marriages are not recognised as valid under English Law if they are not also registered. You can't be a bigamist if your marriage is not registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-06-04 8:16 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 8:49 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 8:33 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 7:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:44 PM Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? So if you're a Muslim you can ignore our laws? :-| ..........Isn't that why we are where we are? *-) ......... The freedom to believe whatever you like is a fundamental part of our law but how you behave is subject to the same laws as everyone else. It's that simple. So why are Muslims allowed to be bigamists if they're subject to the same laws as us? :-| ........ Because their religious marriages are not recognised as valid under English Law if they are not also registered. You can't be a bigamist if your marriage is not registered. Yet Christian marriages are *-) .........As I said its one rule for them and a different one for everyone else ;-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-06-04 8:57 AM Violet1956 - 2018-06-04 8:16 AM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 8:49 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 8:33 PM pelmetman - 2018-06-03 7:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-06-03 7:44 PM Under our secular law only one wife counts as your wife so what is the problem Dave? So if you're a Muslim you can ignore our laws? :-| ..........Isn't that why we are where we are? *-) ......... The freedom to believe whatever you like is a fundamental part of our law but how you behave is subject to the same laws as everyone else. It's that simple. So why are Muslims allowed to be bigamists if they're subject to the same laws as us? :-| ........ Because their religious marriages are not recognised as valid under English Law if they are not also registered. You can't be a bigamist if your marriage is not registered. Yet Christian marriages are *-) .........As I said its one rule for them and a different one for everyone else ;-) ......... No Dave you and anyone else can take as many "wives" as you like too- just don't try to marry them in a ceremony that is recognised as a valid marital contract under English Law. Probably a bit too late for you to maximise those freedoms you didn't realise you had what a shame eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.