Deportation - Apparently A Debate Thread?? :?

[Gibbo]

i have bin neither aggresive, vitriolic or any o da things du says. - YOU HAVE

 

i have dun nithing tae merit dis singling oot dat folk have decided tae launch at me, - YOU HAVE

 

but i refuse tae get dragged intae a slanging match wi folk wi far too much time on der hands and who are far too willing tae drag this thread aff topic by accusing ithers o doing it. - WELL DONT THEN

 

For the record, Peeriesookey has posted NINE times today

 

1.30am

1.03pm

1.49pm

1.58pm

2.15pm

2.37pm

2.47pm

3.12pm

5.05pm

 

Now, who has too much time on their hands? My previous post received a reply within about 5mins of initial post. Peeriesookey, do you sit in front of your computer hitting the refresh button? Waiting for someone to post.

 

I await you response (estimate time of arrival - 20 seconds from now)

[derick]

Indeed,

the three amigos have and are successfully obstructing constructive debate by filling up the board with acres of drivel. If they were trying to be deliberately obstructive they could hardly do better.

 

it really is best to try and ignore them.

 

Derick

[peeriesooky]

I know this thread is "supposed" to be for debating the Satch issue but there appears to be very little debate going on - just slurs, aggression and nonsense.

 

who's guilty o this noo?

 

so whit if i've posted nine times? whit difference dis dat mak?

 

if i've bin sae bad, tell me whit it is i've supposedly done?

 

not dat it maks ony difference, cos if onywan tries tae defend demsels on here, folk lik u hae a go at dem fir defending demsels and its a never ending cycle.

 

jist drop it

 

dis sort of "u said this, no i didnd, yes u did" postings get folk naewhaar

 

[peeriesooky]

Indeed,

the three amigos have and are successfully obstructing constructive debate by filling up the board with acres of drivel. If they were trying to be deliberately obstructive they could hardly do better.

 

it really is best to try and ignore them.

 

Derick

 

da only folk who are succesfully obstructing dis thread is da folk who are consistantly complaining aboot folk disrupting dis thread. give it a rest.

 

if folk stopped haeing a go at each ither der wid be nae problem.

[JustMe]

Gibbo wrote

 

know this thread is "supposed" to be for debating the Satch issue but there appears to be very little debate going on - just slurs, aggression and nonsense.

 

Well it seems that there have been postings that seem to be debating the way the core topic should be debated rather than debating the topic. Perhaps there is little to say until the next phase of the court process starts?.

 

Meanwhile peeriesooky did raise an important point about other people on Shetland with the threat of deportation hanging over them. Surely if Sakchai "wins" it would be worth carrying the campaigns momentum over to the other cases and if Sakchai "loses" maybe the campaign could move from being pro Sakachai to being anti Home Office.

[peeriesooky]

exactly. if dis campaign is succesful, and lets hope it is, lets carry on da momentum tae ither folks plight and use dis as an example dat it can be done. but it dus help ta hae dat 1st succesful case tae uae as a beacon of hope fir ithers, whether here or on da mainland

 

:tmbup;

[plucker]

i have not said onything tae smear da campaign in da slightest, if du wid actually pay attention tae whit i have posted recently du will notice dat my aunts sister and mother are in a similar situation tae sakchai (not been granted permission tae stay here and are waiting conformation as tae when dey hae ta leave shetland) so why in gods name wid i be against dis campaign?

 

Putting our past differences aside peeriesooky please do tell regarding the situation of your aunts sister and mother and their similar situation? I am genuinely interested.

 

As has been mentioned the campaign will likely take the move of assisting others in their time of need also once it has been brought to its crescent of Sakchais predicament on the 7th of this month. Though your family may like to keep themselves to themselves? many do. Perhaps enlightening others of such a similar predicament within yours will endear them to its cause. it will also allow others to rally to the indifference our government display to such cases!!!

[peeriesooky]

my aunt is originally fae a non eu member country, and married my uncle a good few years back, hae kids and aathing. due to her mithers ill health dey moved her and my aunts sister over so as to be able tae look after dem better at significant cost tae demsels. unfortunately der application fir permission tae stay has been declined and noo dey may have to return from whence dey came.

 

it's nae exactly lik sakchai's case, but it's still da case dat my aunts mither and sister are gonna be taken away fae her at sum point which is still upsetting

[peeriesooky]

i dinna think der's an affy lot can be dun fir dem, but i dinna lik da idea o dis happening tae ither folk (or in sakchai's case, arguably a wirse situation due to it being mair forcibly removed, though hopefully dis winna be da case)

 

fingers crossed fir dis coming friday

[Sam]

Gibbo wrote

 

know this thread is "supposed" to be for debating the Satch issue but there appears to be very little debate going on - just slurs, aggression and nonsense.

 

Well it seems that there have been postings that seem to be debating the way the core topic should be debated rather than debating the topic. Perhaps there is little to say until the next phase of the court process starts?.

 

Meanwhile peeriesooky did raise an important point about other people on Shetland with the threat of deportation hanging over them. Surely if Sakchai "wins" it would be worth carrying the campaigns momentum over to the other cases and if Sakchai "loses" maybe the campaign could move from being pro Sakachai to being anti Home Office.

 

i totaly agree with you there, i would like the cause to continue that line too.

 

I think peeriesooky has been ok with his/her points, as said before this is the debate line and we should be abble to debate anything in here withough being atacked for having a free/diffrent view - this is a free country - well sometimes

[Sam]

i dinna think der's an affy lot can be dun fir dem, but i dinna lik da idea o dis happening tae ither folk (or in sakchai's case, arguably a wirse situation due to it being mair forcibly removed, though hopefully dis winna be da case)

 

fingers crossed fir dis coming friday

 

i will have my fingers crossed too and for your folk too.

[Sam]

I know this thread is "supposed" to be for debating the Satch issue but there appears to be very little debate going on - just slurs, aggression and nonsense.

 

 

Freedom of speech is, of course, important but this is too much. The thread has been spoilt by a trio of obstructionists. Would it not be better if they were banned? Or better still, bowed out voluntarily with the profuse gratitude of everyone else. The we could all get back to discussing the relevent issue in a intelligent and considerate manner.

 

I await Peeriesooky's vitriolic backlash with resignation.

 

I agree with you there some of us got lost on the way through the debating, me included, but i would hate to see what would have happend if we had acttualy people on here with their views that did not agree with the subjects in shetlink- would you delete them all? every subject on this fourm has a for or agenst or those who are undesided. You cant deside (or who would) which one we should follow and delete the rest or the 'debate' point of the links are lost? what do the rest of you think?

As always im open to changing my mind if im wrong

 

If the modorators thought it was wrong, they would have deleted them or at least giving them a warning, would they not?

[trout]

I know this thread is "supposed" to be for debating the Satch issue but there appears to be very little debate going on - just slurs, aggression and nonsense.

 

Peeriesooky's latest contribution was a classic - "I thought of something to say but decided it was irrelevent so I decided to say it anyway but because it is irrelevent it is also relevent." I am paraphrasing, of course.

 

Freedom of speech is, of course, important but this is too much. The thread has been spoilt by a trio of obstructionists. Would it not be better if they were banned? Or better still, bowed out voluntarily with the profuse gratitude of everyone else. The we could all get back to discussing the relevent issue in a intelligent and considerate manner.

 

I await Peeriesooky's vitriolic backlash with resignation.

 

I agree with you there some of us got lost on the way through the debating, me included, but i would hate to see what would have happend if we had acttualy people on here with their views that did not agree with the subjects in shetlink- would you delete them all? every subject on this fourm has a for or agenst or those who are undesided. You cant deside (or who would) which one we should follow and delete the rest or the 'debate' point of the links are lost? what do the rest of you think?

As always im open to changing my mind if im wrong

 

May I point out Sam that it is not the policy of Shetlink to delete anyones posts due to them not fitting with with anyones perceived view. These forums are here to "share information, share resources and communicate ideas", whichever point of view one has! The only condition is that these views are communicated within the Forum terms and conditions.

[Sam]

thanks for that information trout.

 

info that we should all find interesting

[peeriesooky]

These forums are here to "share information, share resources and communicate ideas", whichever point of view one has! The only condition is that these views are communicated within the Forum terms and conditions.

 

a point well put. noo let's either debate on mair friendly terms, or give dis thread up