Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 So part of the problem occurs when you use phrases like the one highlighted. By grabbing the moral high ground like this you insinuate that everyone who is against this legislation is somehow not interested in protecting children. Not only is this obviously untrue but it is an intellectually bankrupt way to argue a point. You are additionally arguing that people who oppose the legislation are only interested in politics without providing any proof for this. Doing this means YOU are using politics. But apparently that is OK because only you and your side cares about children. I have no idea when this type of ridiculous argument became popular but it is everywhere and most people disengage immediately when they see it. You are talking shite and have managed to get every point you make wrong. A remarkable post.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 What would be more helpful would be a detailed reason why localisation is inferior to centralisation in this specific case.I didn't say localisation was inferior to centralisation.You can legislate centrally and have differences in how it is implemented locally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said: 15 minutes ago, oaksoft said: So part of the problem occurs when you use phrases like the one highlighted. By grabbing the moral high ground like this you insinuate that everyone who is against this legislation is somehow not interested in protecting children. Not only is this obviously untrue but it is an intellectually bankrupt way to argue a point. You are additionally arguing that people who oppose the legislation are only interested in politics without providing any proof for this. Doing this means YOU are using politics. But apparently that is OK because only you and your side cares about children. I have no idea when this type of ridiculous argument became popular but it is everywhere and most people disengage immediately when they see it. You are talking shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 Just now, TPAFKATS said: I didn't say localisation was inferior to centralisation. You can legislate centrally and have differences in how it is implemented locally. You should have led with this if you wanted a decent chat TBH. If you want to behave like a c**t I'm happy to let you chat to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 You should have led with this if you wanted a decent chat TBH. [emoji38] If you want to behave like a c**t I'm happy to let you chat to others.I don't have the inclination or time to take your long winded post apart point by point so I summarised it into you are talking shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 I didn't say localisation was inferior to centralisation.You can legislate centrally and have differences in how it is implemented locally. Nowhere have you even hinted at this.Unintentionally or not, you have given off a firm belief in the opposite.So there are differences in capacity to implement and monitor legislation from region to region and flexibility is good now... Despite you saying I was talking rubbish for essentially agreeing with what you now say!Strange debating tactic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 4 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: Nowhere have you even hinted at this. Unintentionally or not, you have given off a firm belief in the opposite. So there are differences in capacity to implement and monitor legislation from region to region and flexibility is good now... Despite you saying I was talking rubbish for essentially agreeing with what you now say! Strange debating tactic! Maybe if he paused for a moment before posting in an emotionally charged manner he wouldn't make such daft mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 Nowhere have you even hinted at this.Unintentionally or not, you have given off a firm belief in the opposite.So there are differences in capacity to implement and monitor legislation from region to region and flexibility is good now... Despite you saying I was talking rubbish for essentially agreeing with what you now say!Strange debating tactic! There isn't any legislation though, that's the point. There's a handful of councils implementing something. What they have is different and it's not li ked up with each other. There's also 20 odd councils who aren't doing much if anything.The aim of legislation was to ensure that there were standards in place across the country, how those standards were implemented and how responsibilities were managed may change if there were logistic challenges.You may think I haven't hinted at this. Of course it could also be how you and oaksoft interpret my posts due to how emotional you are when reading and posting [emoji6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 You made accusations when I critizised Sturgeon , it sounded like you had her on a pedistal . I didn't have to wait long for you to make almost the exact same criticism about another MP, which you thought was now okay , which , demonstartes it was who the criticism was about rather than word l used that you tried to make a big thing about. You have got mixed up with the current argument you are trying to make, in attempting to defend a party that has lost its way by wandering away from it's core values . The legislation that was spun to look all noble , was challenged by campaigners and then thrown out by the Supreme court. Rather than try and amend it the inept Swinney did a climb downYou made a misogynistic post about Sturgeon. I commented on the misogyny, not because it was about her.Can you show me where I did the same?I'm not defending the SNP on the named person proposal. I'm defending the legislation as being a positive thing as it safeguards children. I'm disappointed that all parties failed to make it work. I did point out that none of the opposition parties voted against it then subsequently changed their mind as they could see a chance to score points against the government. That is poor in my opinion but attacking them isn't the same as defending the SNP. The "campaigners" that took this to court are a right wing Christian group who in addition to not being politicians (not necessarily a bad thing) are in no way experts in child health, safety or wellbeing.Did swinney climb down or did he know that as a minority government he couldn't get legislation through without support of at least one other party? Again, why couldn't they work on a solution? If it was due to swinney or snp intransigence them I'm sure the media would've reported that but I've not seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 Whilst I'm almost certain you don't see it that way , all of that is based on your opinions, opinions that I'm happy enough for you to have but your opinions all the same.  As far as the misogyny quip is concerned you were trying to use political correctness as a weapon to stop free speech.  And your post is......... Your opinion.Thanks for telling me they ain't my real opinions though [emoji1]You insulted a woman based on her sex. Nothing else, you didn't mention her competency like you did with swinney last night. It's not political correctness to point out this is misogyny. I'm not the only one point it out.Its similar to insulting someone based on their nationality, race, sexual orientation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 27, 2019 Report Share Posted September 27, 2019 But somehow Swiney the politician is ?Of course he isn't. He's an elected politician who like the rest are supposed to introduce legislation for the benefit of the country. In doing this they consult with a range of experts, organisations involved in the particular area and the public. He's not claiming to be an expert. Ffs, take the tin foil hat off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 Tolerance is a virtue they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 2 hours ago, St.Ricky said: Tolerance is a virtue they say. Well... 'THEY' are lying basturts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 I think that is what Tom calls an ad hominem commentNah, it's not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Saintss Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 I don't have the inclination or time to take your long winded post apart point by point so I summarised it into you are talking shite. What you mean is that you don’t have the knowledge or the intelligence to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 Err, aye it is . You lost your argument , somewhere in the vicinity of the supreme court . You then came on here repeatedly , trying to justify the Swiney/SNP legislation that quite simply , was found to be a breach of fundamental human rightsI didn't lose that argument, you just didn't agree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 Nah , the supreme court threw out legislation that they (obviously more qualified than you) found to be a fundamental breach of Human Rights . Obviously there are all the groups that were set against the legislation too , so , it wasn't just me that disagreed with it. Your fixed ideas and opinions wont let your mind 'lose the argument' despite what the law said.Do you just throw these phrases in for dramatic effect? All these groups [emoji1]Take the tin foil hat off, it might help you read what I actually posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Saintss Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 Do you just throw these phrases in for dramatic effect? All these groups [emoji1] Take the tin foil hat off, it might help you read what I actually posted.  To use one of your own dramatic phrases, you posted a load of shite  On another topic, I see Carl Beech story back in the news today. What a fool you are [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji8] Enjoy your weekend loser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 3 hours ago, theknickerwetter said: Nah , the supreme court threw out legislation that they (obviously more qualified than you) found to be a fundamental breach of Human Rights . Obviously there are all the groups that were set against the legislation too , so , it wasn't just me that disagreed with it. Your fixed ideas and opinions wont let your mind 'lose the argument' despite what the law said. That's not correct. They found the Data sharing aspect incompatable with the data protection act (right to privacy). Child protection would trump data protection, but in this case, there can be no presumption that there are child protection issue. So, the supreme court asked SG to revise the data sharing provision. SG with their lawyers looked at it and could not find away round the problem, so will not implement the act. As someone with an interest in this I'm disappointed that this has not gone through. It had the overwhelming support of everyone in the childcare field (admittedly teachers not as keen as they do not like to think of themselves as social workers.) and some "parents groups" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 This has become very circuitous. You can't even quote me properly which means it is beyond your abilty to comprehend more like you simply ,canny duplicate the words appearing on your screen. You expected me to agree with a horrible law after the supreme court threw it out for being a contarvention of the childs human rights ,even that creep Comrade Swiney had the dignity to give up on it , l suggest you do the same [emoji6]I literally just hit the quote button and it quotes you. [emoji1]As you can see here, you aren't making much sense. you utter f**kin buffoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted October 5, 2019 Report Share Posted October 5, 2019 8 hours ago, theknickerwetter said: That , yeah that dusnae surprise me in the least You can read in the article below that what you said , isnae quite right https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13189587.named-person-law-clashes-with-human-rights/ Why does it not surprise you in the least that I know what I'm talking about.   I know I should not engage, but see below for the ruling. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-press-summary.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted October 5, 2019 Report Share Posted October 5, 2019 9 hours ago, theknickerwetter said: This has become very circuitous. You can't even quote me properly which means it is beyond your abilty to comprehend more like you simply ,canny duplicate the words appearing on your screen. You expected me to agree with a horrible law after the supreme court threw it out for being a contarvention of the childs human rights ,even that creep Comrade Swiney had the dignity to give up on it , l suggest you do the same 😉 Not the child's human rights. Do read the ruling. Someone getting under your skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted October 7, 2019 Report Share Posted October 7, 2019 1 minute ago, theknickerwetter said: LMFAO!! Oh good, I thought you were being serious in your posts. Wooshed again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 8, 2019 Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 Did someone upset you . . . .your problem is , you simply do not know when to stop flogging a dead horse. .No, I'm not upset.If you want to get the last word go ahead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted October 12, 2019 Report Share Posted October 12, 2019 On 10/11/2019 at 3:50 PM, theknickerwetter said: Nah , what is hilarious here is your continued attempts to justify legislation that was found to be illegal🤣🤣 As I said READ THE JUDGEMENT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.