Shooting at Washington Shipyard

@BillRM,

Bill continues with deflections because his original claim that the channel islands are part of the UK was clearly wrong.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

And they can apply for UK-citizenship, like anyone else.

Strange as they can vote in all UK electrons if they are living in the UK and that is normally a mark of citizenship.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/who_can_register_to_vote.aspx

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

ill continues with deflections because his original claim that the channel islands are part of the UK was clearly wrong.

Sorry but they can assume full citizenship rights by moving to the UK including voting in all UK elections.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law

British citizens
British Citizens usually hold this status through a connection with the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man ("United Kingdom and Islands"). Former Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) who possessed right of abode under the Immigration Act 1971 through a connection with the United Kingdom and Islands generally became British citizens on 1 January 1983.
British citizenship is the most common type of British nationality, and the only one that automatically carries a right of abode in the United Kingdom.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry but they can assume full citizenship rights by moving to the UK including voting in all UK elections.

It's my bedtime. But you do know the difference between different classes British nationality and the British citizenship, don't you? (A Channel Islander or a British or other EU-citizen can vote in our state, too, if she/he has residency here.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

EU citizens can not vote in parliamentary elections only full UK citizens can do so.

Take note of my always using the word ALL elections in my postings concerning this matter.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Funny thing about that quote.
The channel islands are NOT part of the UK.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You are so full of ****. The Channel Island were indefensible. All the islanders were offered passage to the UK, some took it, others stayed.

It was also futile to attempt to reoccupy the islands until after the war.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You are so full of ****. The Channel Island were indefensible. All the islanders were offered passage to the UK, some took it, others stayed.

An do you think that the US Military had high hopes of being able to defend the Philippines successfully in 1941 and yet we stay.

Then when the logic of war would call for us bypassing them in our march across the Pacific honor call instead for taking them back and that what we did.

To sum up England cut and run without honor from the channel islands and we surely did not do so in the Philippines.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You didn't stay. You were overrun.

You're a moron, if idiots like you had been running the show back in 1940, not only would we have lost the Channel Islands, we wouldn't have been able to defend mainland Britain.

Eisenhower was in charge of the war in Europe. Why do you think he decided not to invade the islands?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You didn't stay. You were overrun.

We stay and was overrun true however you abandon the channel islands faster then your forces abandon New Orleans after Jackson got done with you but unlike New Orleans you did not fire one shot in angry over the channel islands before running.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

e have lost the Channel Islands, we wouldn't have been able to defend mainland Britain.

Sorry but it was due to your navy and your air power that kept you safe on your island not any land forces you have at that time.

If Sea Lion forces could have cross the channel whether you did or did not do the honorable thing and defend or not defend the channel islands would not have matter.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You're a moron who has no interest in actually discussing anything with any form of objectivity. All you want to do is score cheap points. Every time I respond to one of your posts I regret it. You have absolutely nothing of any worth to offer.

1 Reply

Just a reminder, this is what started it all....

BillRM wrote:

Then we have such events as posted below happening without the need of firearms in the UK.

From my reading the one person wounded did not make it so the deaths toll was six not five.

Quote:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Aug/14/jersey-police-5-dead-in-mass-stabbing-1-arrested/

LONDON — Police on the British island of Jersey say a 30-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of stabbing at least five people to death in an apartment.

No matter how Bill tries to spin it or who he tries to insult Jersey is NOT a part of the UK.

2 Replies

@parados,

And aren't we all just a bit more cynical and world weary as a result?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You're a moron who has no interest in actually discussing anything with any form of objectivity. All you want to do is score cheap points. Every time I respond to one of your posts I regret it. You have absolutely nothing of any worth to offer.

LOL

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Just a reminder, this is what started it all....
No matter how Bill tries to spin it or who he tries to insult Jersey is NOT a part of the UK.

... and this is Edgar's thread about the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

.. and this is Edgar's thread about the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard.

An how did we get to Jersey in the first place?

Oh yes, I posted about a mass killing that have nothing to do with firearms but stabbings in the UK/ Jersey and then we got off of whether Jersey is or is not part of the UK.

An the subject of non-firearm killings came up due to the anti-firearm people claiming if guns was magically wave out of existence the world would turn into a peaceful crime free paradise such as now exist in the UK.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Try to fatally stab twenty-six people and see how far you get before someone shoots you with a gun. You seem to miss the whole point of the gun control debate. It is not that guns kills people, of course there are other weapons that kill people, including cars and airplanes. The point of the gun control (control being operative word) is to simply have some sensible regulations to control how fast a person can kill people before being stopped or to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who have mental problems or violent problems in their past so that we can control incidents like this shooting at the ship yard and Sandy Hook. We obviously can't prevent all deaths, but we can at least give it our best shot (no pun intended) in trying to prevent as many as we can.

2 Replies

@revelette,

Quote:

some sensible regulations to control how fast a person can kill people before being stopped or to try to keep guns out of the hands of people who have mental problems or violent problems in their past s

You do know that two out of the three firearms of the shooter was seized from the security guards and all he carry in was a shotgun?

An without the shotgun he could still had walked up to a security guard with a knife and killed him and seized the first handgun?

So you wish police and military security not to have fast firing and large capacity weapons to keep them from perhaps falling into the hand of a shooter?

If so I kind of agree with you, if for other reasons, that the police at least should be force to go back to revolvers.

0 Replies

Shooting at Washington Shipyard

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know