Jump to content

toontastic

Members
  • Posts

    1,519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • From
    blyth, Northumberland:
  • Interests
    Watching football, playing golf(badly),fishing(game+sea)

Recent Profile Visitors

1,651 profile views
  1. I can't understand why he was pointing and firing a blank gun at those particular people.
  2. Yes it means either he's guilty or she's after an easy pay day.
  3. toontastic

    Afghanistan

    The Taliban want to send out a message to the world that they are in control of Afghanistan. Yesterday's attack sends out the message that they aren't in control. No way would the Taliban be behind an attack that killed their own men as it goes against everything they are trying to portray to the world.
  4. toontastic

    Afghanistan

    I have to disagree with your post. In your last line you said "some" but I think "most" is the word you were actually looking for.
  5. toontastic

    Afghanistan

    Simple logic tells you it wasn't the taliban.
  6. toontastic

    Afghanistan

    Rubbish, maybe a long drawn out civil war but not capitulation within a few days.
  7. toontastic

    Afghanistan

    Just 2 points, first of all Biden hit the nail on the head last last when he said "why should our troops die when theirs won't even fight" Secondly those experts criticising Raab for his statement didn't see it coming, I certainly didn't. The ANA have received loads of training from the best soldiers the UK and USA has to offer, they were equipped with up to date equipment and the "Afghan Special Forces" got trained by UK/US special forces. Yet for all the training and equipment they received they capitulated within a few days and all without putting up a fight.
  8. If anything is disgraceful its you using this thread to continue your hatred of the police. Others are critical of what happened but you always have an obvious hatred in your agenda. Criticism is welcome but try not to let your apparent hatred take over threads.
  9. The problem with you is you're a cop hater pure and simple. If information had been released that a special police team were profiling peoples suitability to have a sgc via their social media presence you'd be the first person to whinge they should stop invading people's privacy, get a proper job and catch criminals. Now that this has happened and his social media presence gives many clues to his persona you're whinging that they didn't pick up on it.
  10. So why didn't you warn the police about him
  11. I bet if you asked some environmental activists they would say yes
  12. If he paid for sex with a minor I'd like to think so. But if he just had sex with someone above the age of censent but under 18 and there was no financial incentive payable to the female then NO
  13. Except the age of consent isn't fixed at 16. Having sex with a minor (under 18) that you care/responsible for is an offence. Also child prostitution covers minors (under 18) so IF she was 17 at the time and IF she was paid for a sex act then an offence was committed. Child pornography laws also covers minors (under 18) so a 17 year old can have sex but she can't be filmed doing it.
  14. The fact is he is being judged on what we now know about him. If we knew the facts of his state of mind at the time of issue we may have different conclusions.
×
×
  • Create New...