Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
Now The Police Finally Find People Who Won't Be Nasty To Them...
57 Answers
They close down a church service in South London (Covid). Knew we Catholics would get their ridiculous attention sooner or later. Hardly a marauding mob. Good to know, however, that they felt sufficiently safe to leave the station.
Answers
I find myself verging towards Oscar Wilde's aphorism of "The Unspeakable in Pursuit of The Uneatable".
It's hard to know which is worthy of greater contempt - the spineless, toadying cowardice of the police when faced with real protests or the appalling (if predictable) actions of the Catholic Church in callously disregarding public safety.
A plague on both their houses!
It's hard to know which is worthy of greater contempt - the spineless, toadying cowardice of the police when faced with real protests or the appalling (if predictable) actions of the Catholic Church in callously disregarding public safety.
A plague on both their houses!
Paigntonian - // And Andy-Hughes: Of course the police decide where they choose to enforce the law. If they don't, who does? You've really excelled yourself today, and not in a sensible way. //
That's rich, coming from someone who mis-qoutes a post and then has a go at the AB'er who didn't post it - and who doesn't know that people who are gathered in a church are not necessarily church-goers!!
My point about the police is that they do not get to decide that they will apply the law here, and not there, today, and not tomorrow, and that is clear to anyone who is not simply looking to pick an argument - especially if that person is in no position to accuse others of 'excelling themselves and not in a good way'.
That's rich, coming from someone who mis-qoutes a post and then has a go at the AB'er who didn't post it - and who doesn't know that people who are gathered in a church are not necessarily church-goers!!
My point about the police is that they do not get to decide that they will apply the law here, and not there, today, and not tomorrow, and that is clear to anyone who is not simply looking to pick an argument - especially if that person is in no position to accuse others of 'excelling themselves and not in a good way'.
-- answer removed --
//anyway there is something unsavory about the OP continually moaning about the police failing to do their job, them moaning just as loudly when they appear to be doing their job//
I think our Devonian friend's criticism revolves around choosing to pick only the low hanging fruit. But in this case, of course, there is also the matter of whether the action taken by the police was lawful or not.
I think our Devonian friend's criticism revolves around choosing to pick only the low hanging fruit. But in this case, of course, there is also the matter of whether the action taken by the police was lawful or not.
I don't think church meetings should have been given special privileges over other hobbies or pastimes in the first place and allowing it will obviously draw scrutiny from others not allowed to pursue their pastimes. That said if bridge clubs had been given the green light instead I'm sure they too would also be pushing the boundaries of what's allowed so I don't think the church did anything anyone else wouldn't.
Mamya - // However now this has moved on from 'a' church to Catholic bashing I'll *** off. //
I am not 'bashing' anyone, and certainly not on the basis of their faith.
I am taking the thread originator to task for blatantly misquoting another AB'er and then having a pop at him for something he did not say, then making erroniuous comments about the police, followed by erronious comments about what constitutes a church-goer, followed by a chidlish insult.
None of those posts are based on faith, with the exception of the one pointing out the inability of the originator to observe the tenents of her faith, and keep a civil tongue when responding.
I am not 'bashing' anyone, and certainly not on the basis of their faith.
I am taking the thread originator to task for blatantly misquoting another AB'er and then having a pop at him for something he did not say, then making erroniuous comments about the police, followed by erronious comments about what constitutes a church-goer, followed by a chidlish insult.
None of those posts are based on faith, with the exception of the one pointing out the inability of the originator to observe the tenents of her faith, and keep a civil tongue when responding.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.