The EU debate - Part III

Hahahahaha so you dropped the hook after googling, before trying to be a clever ****

Standard from you, you transparent twat

 

Calm down Bern,had a nice little chick over there once.

 

And to think....Leave voters have been labelled thick ****s and Turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

The Supreme Court will decide if May has perogative or not. If they decide against her, she must then put any plans she has to a vote in parliament.

A decision from the surpreme court will not come until January.

 

The fact you think it works that way around, says more about you and your desperate wriggles than it says about me.

If you want to believe that, fill your boots, it's not as though you're anyone important anyway.

please log in to view this image

 

I do believe it love, as that's exactly what transpired

If you care to continue trying to deceive others and delude yourself, then you crack on x

 

Deceive what exactly?

Despite your usual piss poor,desperate attempts to rejig the issue, the simple fact still remains that the post I was responding to wasn't strictly accurate.

please log in to view this image

 

After the vote tomorrow it will all be irrelevant.

 

Project fear revisited.

 

Er, no, it won't!...

It's only a motion for debate. The Supreme Court will decide if she needs to put her final plans to a parliamentary vote.

 

Only it was strictly accurate, as homosexuality was illegal, which is a fair reflection of societies attitude towards it. The fact that homosexuals actually existed and you can google a picture of a cross dresser doesn't alter that simple fact you thick ****

 

Good luck NSIS

 

Your replies just show you're a tad desperate.

please log in to view this image

 

I don't think he understands that May has only agreed to publish draft plans ( have cake and eat it, possibly? ) in exchange for a promise from MP's to let the referendum result stand. She is most definitely not promising a vote...

I've tried to explain it in terms that Kustard should? be able to grasp...

 

This is what Bodinki posted:
We are far more liberal than we were 50 years ago, and far FAR more than 200 years ago.

He referenced 50 years ago, so 1966, and 200 years ago, so 1816.

For some reason, you then started harping on about the Victorians. She reigned from 1837-1901 so the period wasn't relevant to anything that Bodinki said.

His post was also factually correct in the terms of homosexuality (which is what you chose to focus on) as it is not illegal now but it was both 50 and 200 years ago. The Sexual Offences Act was in 1967.

Basically everything about your post was either irrelevant and/or wrong.

Then you started cacking on about opium dens in Victorian times. Opium was legal back then.

You had a mare.

Thanks for sharing your family album though.

 

No answer, so the nonsense starts.....

You'll be accusing me of derailing the thread within half a page of your tedious shuffling

Gay men existing and Victorians being accepting are 2 completely different things, only a complete ****wit would argue that the society that gave arguably the most famous British gay man of the era 2 years hard labour, was one that was accepting of homosexuality.

Try doing more 'research' than article No. 1 on google, next time you want to try and be a clever ****, would be my advice Dull.

 

It says a lot that, like tedious tobes, you try to misrepresent what was posted to try and rejig things to cover the **** up you made by jumping in with a lack of knowledge.

Here's a link to the context and the actual quotes.

http://www.not606.com/threads/the-eu-debate-part-iii.335684/page-973#post-9985463

 

You are in deed and as usual, wriggling and derailing in your usual tedious 'style'. I've posted the quotes and a link to the context in the reply to t'other dim dull ****. You can put them with the pictures that show that it was more of a liberal era than was claimed. The rest is just you squirming.

 

Yep. Exactly as I just explained. Thanks for providing the links and text

 

Yet more bullshit and waffle to deflect away from your latest humiliation, which was borne from your desire to be a clever ****

The pictures prove **** all, the court sentences prove plenty, you absolute cock womble