Barry George found Not Guilty

A place to socialise and share opinions with other members of the BGAFD Community.
mrmcfister
Posts: 1672
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Barry George found Not Guilty

Post by mrmcfister »

Jonone are you big sis? Or that daft bird from Liberty? Either way you've got it bad..or can I just suggest you are arrogant,bigoted and a poor listener...
Mojo
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: A REAL Nut Job!

Post by Mojo »

I was talking partly about his psychology, just as I would the very similar, very white, and very English Fred West, in comparison to the eccentric Barry George, who liked to dress up like a soldier and hound women for dates. I was also making a comment about the government having a crazy non-existent immigration policy that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry into the country in the name of profit for the rich, with little or no interest in whether or not they may be dangerous to the country and its population. If that thing hadn't been let into the country in the first place (as many countries wouldn?t have), then that girl wouldn't have met him, full stop. In other words it's YOU who turned this conversation into a race thing, not me. Hand wringers, honestly, it's your sort, the bleeding hearts and rose tinted glasses wearers of society who've turned this country into the doormat, ghetto and cultural war zone it's become.
Mojo
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: A REAL Nut Job!

Post by Mojo »

Yes, I agree that women mostly have a very strange idea of who "Mr. Right" is. In this case the creature in question had absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever, much like the aforementioned Fred West, who also had loads of genuine partners.
mart
Posts: 4916
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: A REAL Nut Job!

Post by mart »

Mojo said...."I was also making a comment about the government having a crazy non-existent immigration policy that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry into the country in the name of profit for the rich, with little or no interest in whether or not they may be dangerous to the country and its population. If that thing hadn't been let into the country in the first place (as many countries wouldn?t have), then that girl wouldn't have met him, full stop."

On what grounds should he have been refused entry?
The news item says his parents are living in the UK and also that he was an illegal immigrant.

Btw...have I written a single word excusing/condoning his brutal behaviour?

Mart
Mojo
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: A REAL Nut Job!

Post by Mojo »

When my relatives went to the States they had to give fingerprints, eye scans and a whole load of other checks at customs, but when they came back here they didn't even notice they'd gone through customs! Yep, they were nonexistent! Neo Labour's got an open door policy on who or what enters the country. They only give gestures to immigration policy in order to fool naive people just to shut them up. That?s the reason why crazy Muslim preachers, terrorists and other destructive entities easily find their way into the country. His background should have been thoroughly checked out on entry to the country by customs, and when he was found that he was a criminal he should have been refused entry into the country, that is if we had customs, which we obviously don't.
Jacques
Posts: 4169
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: A REAL Nut Job!

Post by Jacques »

Using figures from 2004, 217m passengers went through UK airports. Now you want to do a background check on every single one and not let them into the country until it is done?

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Stewie_McGriffin
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: A REAL Nut Job!

Post by Stewie_McGriffin »

Mojo you state that the country is a warzone, a ghetto and a doormat. You clearly have strong feelings on the subject.

Why not, therefore, either run for your council, join a political party, lobby on the issue and so on?

Or alternatively use your vote at the next election to vote in a different political party.

As Jacques also points out, to do a background check on the 217m people coming through the airports (I'm assuming that doesn't include ferry terminals and the Chunnel Jacques?) would take not only a ridiculous amount of time but also manpower. Which would need to be funded by the taxpayer via higher taxes. Which I'm assuming you wouldn't want to pay?

However, your point about 'Nu-Labour' being a fault is somewhat moot - the article states he was an illegal immigrant, therefore the likelihood of him being 'let in' is quite slim - he probably came in via a back door at a quiet port. Similarly, you state that a background check would have confirmed him as a criminal. How? Nowhere in the article does it state that he has a criminal record of any kind so that check, even if it was carried out, wouldn't have helped.

I'd love to stay and chat but you're a total bitch.
Locked