BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 10:48 AM

Your carefully unlinked claim was from an anti-Corbynite, right winger. Emily Thornbury, who supports the old guard and has a somewhat bizarre record of hypocricy and dishonesty – what else is such a person going to say?
Jim Carroll
Mugging claims[edit]
In March 2008, Thornberry claimed that almost every child in Islington had been mugged at some stage.[21] This was denied by the Metropolitan Police as 'speculation', pointing out that out of a borough population of 180,000, only 750 people under 18 had reported being the victims of mugging in 2007.[22] However, the comments were deemed a hindrance to Labour London Mayor Ken Livingstone's re-election campaign.[23]
Personal life[edit]
Thornberry has lived in Islington since the early 1990s. In July 1991 she married fellow-barrister Sir Christopher Nugee, of Wilberforce Chambers,[62] in Tower Hamlets, and they have two sons (born December 1991 and July 1999) and a daughter (born November 1993). Nugee later became a Queen's Counsel, then a High Court Judge, when he wasknighted (whereupon she became formally styled Lady Nugee MP, a title she does not use).[63] Since 1993 they have lived on Richmond Crescent, Barnsbury, where Tony Blairalso lived until the 1997 general election, moving in on the same day as the Blairs.[64] Thornberry also part-owns properties in Guildford and South London.[54][65]
In April 2005, it emerged that Thornberry had sent her son to the partially selective Dame Alice Owen's School 14 miles (23 km) away from her home and outside her constituency. The school was formerly based in Islington and still reserves ten per cent of its places for Islington pupils.[66] The Labour Party opposes selection and Thornberry was widely criticised over the issue as a result.[67] Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools said: "I celebrate her good sense as a parent and deplore her hypocrisy as a politician. When will those who espouse the virtues of comprehensive education apply the logic of their political message to their children?" Later, Thornberry's daughter also attended the school.[68]

In a September 2016 TV interview, whilst serving as shadow foreign minister, Thornberry was asked to name the French foreign minister. Thornberry confirmed that she was unable to name the minister,[49] and accused the interviewer of sexism. Thornberry then asked to discuss the situation of North Korea, so the interviewer asked if she knew who the South Korean president was, but Thornberry did not know, saying that the interview was descending into a pub quiz. Female journalists and politicians, including Isabel Hardman and Ruth Davidson, quickly criticised Thornberry for using an allegation of sexism to cover her own poor performance.[49] Thornberry then appeared on Radio 4 to say that the interview had been sexist because the interviewer had not asked such questions of a man because the interviewer assumed that a man would know the answer.[50] However, the interviewer had previously asked a man, Alan Johnson, comparable factual questions.[51]
Thornberry was interviewed by the British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS). She said: "I have actually quite a lot more experience than people might think I do. As I say I have a member of the armed forces I have a brother-in-law who's a general. I was actually made an honorary lieutenant colonel when I was doing court-martials [sic] when I was a barrister and so I have a certain amount of experience of the military there."[46] The Ministry of Defence denied this claim and Thornberry subsequently admitted she had thought she was made a colonel to have access to the officers' mess, not to appear in courts-martial.[47] During a Labour discussion about the nuclear deterrent, Thornberry admitted that she did not know what the nuclear defence rating, Defcon, is.[48]

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 11:28 AM

That yet another example of the better informed and more knowledgeable group of people (MPs) that Shaw says are better placed to make decisions on our behalf?

Found that most of our current crop of "professional" politicians are only capable of carrying out the instructions given them by their respective whips and for the crowd in power that advice is normally centred around keeping the party in power so that their noses remain firmly stuck in the trough.

Recently Labour have got themselves in one terrible muddle trying to get to grips with what their voter base considers important, they have given up trying to keep track of the number of "U-turns" being made by the "great leader" on free-movement they now have a rev counter. And it apparently hasn't even registered that the political party now firmly in UKIP's sights is Labour not Conservative, if Corbyn stays on as leader the next General Election will be interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 12:12 PM

Have you actually got anything to say about anything at all, Teribus? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:18 PM

Covered quite a lot in that last post Shaw. Might no accord with the ill-advised script you tend to follow - but that would come as no great surprise now would it?

It was you who held the rather quaint and naïve belief that MPs are better informed than anybody else wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:25 PM

Go to bed, Billy boy. It's way past your bedtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:56 PM

"Recently Labour have got themselves in one terrible muddle trying to get to grips with what their voter base considers important"
Labour has decided to live up to the principles that it was first created for in order to give the electorate a genuine choice rather than the same policy under different names - takes a lot of courage to do that
It has fought off a coup by right wing career politicians who wish to keep it as a meal ticket for themselves, so they have had two leadership elections, each time winning a decision for change - it takes plenty of balls to do that
They have fought off dishonest accusations of antisemitism instigated by a foreign power, and supported by the career politicians and proved those accusations groundless - takes a lot of dedication to do that.
Now they have to win an electorate over for genuine change instead of the same old same old which has bankrupt Britain - let's see what happens.
On the other hand, the Tories called a referendum without a backup plan in case the decision was to leave Europe - an absolute shambles, resignation of a Prime Minister,,the appointment of a racist moron as foreign secretary, sharp rise of racist attacks,   economic wobble due to lack of planning and future uncertainty.
British ambassador resigns from European negotiations blaming the heavy handedness of the "control freak" Prime minister - Britain left without a voice in European negotiation.   
British withdrawal from Europe has not only put the future of the United Kingdom at risk, but it will probably take up to ten years for it to break with Europe and when it does, there are no contingency plans to replace the jobs that will no longer be available on the continent - the threat of rising unemployment due to the lack of a British industrial base is likely to destroy the lives of a generation.
The Government decides on a new runway for Heathrow, but have to put in on ice for fear of resignation of MPs.
The situation in the health service has now reached the stage of being described as a humanitarian crisis.
Nearly a year ago, leading members of the Muslim community accuse the Government of Islamophobia - in contrast to Labour's immediate action, the Tories did nothing, the charges have never been investigated.
America has elected a racist, misogynist thug into the White House with the help of Russia and already the establishment suck-holes are tripping over themselves to kiss his ring.
Now who should I vote for - eenie, meanie......?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:38 AM

Good heavens:

1: "Labour has decided to live up to the principles that it was first created for in order to give the electorate a genuine choice rather than the same policy under different names - takes a lot of courage to do that"

"Courage" or complete lack of common sense? If they do not wish to recognise that the country and the world today bears no resemblance at all to the one that existed when the Labour Party was created, that is their affair but in doing so they must know that they will not win any elections on that ticket.

2: "It has fought off a coup by right wing career politicians who wish to keep it as a meal ticket for themselves"

The Parliamentary Labour Party consists of 230 Labour MPs, of whom 172 of them according to Jim Carroll are "right-wing career politicians" and only 40 of them actually support the "Great Leader". What a strange party it must be.

3: "They have fought off dishonest accusations of antisemitism instigated by a foreign power, and supported by the career politicians and proved those accusations groundless - takes a lot of dedication to do that."

Instigated by the resignation of the co-chairman of the Oxford University Labour Club on the stated grounds that Jewish members of said club no longer felt safe enough to attend its meetings. Which begs the question what instigation from what foreign power? Unless of course Labour's own National Executive Committee are a foreign power because they were the ones that commissioned and empowered not one but two Inquiries into the matter, it was the NEC who suspended at least 50 members of the Labour Party {Tell me Jim has Ken Livingston been returned to the fold yet?} Suspended the activities of at least four Constituency Labour Groups/Parties and Jim, Shaw & Co., all want us to believe it was all over nothing - pull the other one.

4: "Now they have to win an electorate over for genuine change instead of the same old same old which has bankrupt Britain - let's see what happens."

Strange thing to say about the world's fifth largest economy Jim. The Labour Governments of Blair and Brown made the most concerted effort since the end of the Second World War to bankrupt the UK but fortunately they failed. Labour have been defeated in the last two UK General Elections, they have been wiped out in Scotland where the Conservatives now form the major opposition to the SNP, and under Corbyn Labour looks as though they will remain out of office until the "Great Leader" is replaced. To influence matters Corbyn's Union backers are flexing their muscle but all they seem to be achieving is alienation of the voting public.

5: The Conservatives called a referendum to honour a promise they made to the electorate of the United Kingdom in their election manifesto. To remain in the EU was the official stance of every single political party in the UK with the obvious exception of UKIP, which oddly enough formed no part in the main Leave campaign, made up of Eurosceptic dissidents from the UK's main political parties - Nobody therefore had what you call a back-up plan - why should anybody have to have had one? Everybody thought the electorate would vote to Remain - but they didn't did they? So it takes time to trigger Article 50 and thereafter there are at least two-and-a-half years of negotiations until Brexit becomes a reality (All of that was known before the referendum).

6: "Economic wobble"??

We are doing far better than anyone in the EU, especially those within the Eurozone. The Treasury along with Carney and the Bank of England have been forced by events to retract their pre-Brexit Referendum "doom'n'gloom" predictions.   

7: "British ambassador resigns from European negotiations blaming the heavy handedness of the "control freak" Prime minister - Britain left without a voice in European negotiation."

Hate to have to point this out to you Jim but to-date there have been NO negotiations related to the UK leaving the EU.

8: Your predictions as to how the next decade will unfold are uninformed and run counter to what most analysts economists think.

   

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:27 AM

"Good heavens:"
Pompously strutting as ever, I see
"If they do not wish to recognise that the country and the world today bears no resemblance at all to the one that existed when the Labour Party was created"
You mean back when we had industries and a future
The merging of the political parties has put a stop to that and taken away any chance of development - the British political system has stagnated and democratic choice has become meaningless - how could it be anything else when you are voting for the same policies in different clothes.
Politics has become a career move for politicians and has as little to do with democracy and working for the people as the church has for Christian philosophy
"and only 40 of them actually support the "Great Leader""
My point exactly - the leadership is totally out of step with its own membership, as the votes for Corbyn have shown - no party can boast about that - it takes a extremity right-wing moronic post -Tebbinite opponent to do that.
Antisemitism has been proven so firmly that those who claimed it have been unable to describe it or to quantify it.
Proof positive of its non-existence has been that the leading claimants on this forum have been our in-house Klanners - when they claim something, turn the stone over and look underneath
Unless, of course, Keith and his hangers on's herculean efforts to prove its existence are due to his love of Socialism and his concern for the people!!
"Strange thing to say about the world's fifth largest economy Jim."
Again - my point exactly
We have an unstable economy, no industry, are totally reliant on exports and we have just cut of our nose to spite our face by closing the doors on the possibility of those seeking work finding it elsewhere.
Our economy is geared to making the rich richer and in order to achieve that, working people have no voice in the workplace, no security or choice of employment - zero contracts and an accelerating gap between haves and have nots has become the norm - despite our being "the world's fifth largest economy"
Our greatest import is finance.
Labour has been wiped out in Scotland - doesn't that underline my point
Want to tell me how well the Tories are doing up there?
No- thought not!!
The economists have predicted that it will take at least a decade before the economy stabalises, and even then, it will have fallen considerably below that of pre-Brexit - it hasn't just stagnated it has fallen - no capitalist system, which depends on security and constant growth, can maintain itself in that situation.
The inability of past Governments, Labour and Conservative, to maintain a steady, growing economy has always been the greatest propaganda weapon of their opponents at election time - now insecurity and lack of predictability have become built-in aspects of the system
"Hate to have to point this out to you Jim but to-date there have been NO negotiations related to the UK leaving the EU."
Who asid there was - that has been the farce of Britain's leaving - no preparation, no proper discussion, no plans - just a flag-wagging display of "little Britainism" which is likely to turn into "Little Englandism" if Scotland and Northern Ireland leave The Union, which Brexit has now opened the door to.
Now, how about dropping the pompous belligerence and addressing some real facts - your strutting used to be amusing, now it is somewhat pathetic gesturing
Please don't my my joke about a "pecking order" a reality - discussion groups don't need such things.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:53 AM

I must admit that I do have a worry about the current leadership. Nothing to do with antisemitism or any of the tripe that the media are trying to use to discredit Corbyn, but his lack of action. The NHS seems to be being systematically demolished by the present administration but the opposition seem to be doing little or nothing about it. Junior doctors were presented as the bad guys in the recent dispute and, more recently, GPs are being attacked. And no one seems to be standing up for them.

Yes, the economy is vitally important and Brexit is taking up all the news but, let's face it, that is a done deal and neither the governing party nor the opposition can do anything about it. The opposition should however be fighting tooth and nail for the NHS and other social services to be not only saved but improved.

Just in my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 05:40 AM

Jim, you don't seem to "get it", You don't blame bears for shitting in the woods   :0)


The capitalist system is based on profit making and wealth production.
If YOU want a "free" society with social "rights" for every weird minority under the sun and a benefits system for those who have been made redundant......just like your left wing "liberal" Utopia.....you must accept the darker side of the coin. It seems to me you have already accepted it, but just feel that you need to make the right noises to convince people that you are a real socialist.

Socialism is a must for the future as resources dry up and the population ages....but don't kid yourself it will be any kind of paradise...people will do as they are told, if they break the rules they will suffer, the wealth gap will disappear, but the poor will be no better off........it will be about survival Jim.

I will never see Socialism, but at least I understand it and see the way to move towards it......the road is called education, and "liberalism" is a six bar gate on that road.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 06:44 AM

"you must accept the darker side of the coin. "
You do thagt by exposing them for what they are, not by supporting them as you do
Your arrogant "educating the people" smacks of not so benevolent dictatorship which usually drops the "benmevolent" when they no longer have use for it.
Your stupid aggression towards liberalism is what makes you the fascist you are.
You don't "educate" people for changing society, you win them by standing with them on everyday problems - any political aprty I have ever come into contact with knows that - if yoiu were ecer parft of the CP, you know that that is what the "British Road to Socialism" was all about.
Your stupid, stupid, stupid suggestion that people will one day wake up and find that they need socialism - or whatever, is a guarantee thayt things will never change
The last thing people ned is like you who despises liberalism, despises civil rights, despises social services, despoises non acheivers and pours contempt on anybody who believes in lightening the load today rather than waiting for Pie in the Sky tomorrow
You are solidly on the side of the haves
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:03 AM

Unfortunately, while Jeremy is leader the old guard in Labour, i.e. those two-time losing Blairites and Brownites, will always militate against unity in the party. Split parties are always doomed. I should like to predict that Jeremy will recognise this quite soon, step down gracefully and we'll see Keir Starmer take the helm. He's stayed responsibly loyal to the leadership yet doesn't have any of that New Labour taint. A shoo-in, I'd say. Not saying that's what I'd want but I can't see things staying as they are for very long. Corbyn's unspun integrity will never prevail against the current tidal wave of hubris, shallowness, populism and the tabloids, sad to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 11:28 AM

This is absolutely priceless!!!

"Hate to have to point this out to you Jim but to-date there have been NO negotiations related to the UK leaving the EU." - Teribus

"Who said there was" - says Jim Carroll indignantly - 17 Jan 17 - 04:27 AM


WHO SAID THERE WAS Carroll?? - YOU DID HERE:

Jim Carroll - 16 Jan 17 - 07:56 PM

"British ambassador resigns from European negotiations"

You may have the attention span of a goldfish Carroll others on this forum do not.

Oh by the way as to how the Conservatives are doing North of the Border? Damned sight better than Labour I think adequately describes it. Scottish elections 2011 to 2016 the Conservatives doubled their constituency vote while the Labour Party's constituency vote dropped by about 100,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 12:11 PM

""British ambassador resigns from European negotiations"
He was due to be part of them - I didn't say they'd begun
Your insecurity is coming to the surface again
Neither Labour nor conservatives count north of the border
You have what has happened to Labour, you choose not to comment on the situation in your party
Take your arrogant ranting elsewhere if you have nothing substantial to say you pathetic little bully
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 01:17 PM

Which begs the question what instigation from what foreign power?

You know, the one that controls governments, the world's banks and the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 02:08 PM

"British ambassador resigns from European negotiations"
He was due to be part of them - I didn't say they'd begun"

In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean.

If you state that so-and-so resigns from whatever negotiations it DOES MEAN exactly that - i.e. that negotiations are currently in progress.

If you state that so-and-so resigns his position prior to the commencement of negotiations then negotiations have clearly not started.

we are not mind readers and can only respond to what you write in your usual slapdash approach accompanied by your usual total lack of attention to detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean."
Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out.
You need a mind to be a mind reader - - you fall at the first fence
Are you so stupid you can't recognise how stupid you look when you try and bully and bluster yiur way past questions you can't answer?
Happy to add to the list of examples of your doing so if that's what you want - years worth of your strutting and sputtering untouched.
Ypu're Mudcat's own version of The Wizard of Oz - the litle man with the megaphone hiding behind his screen trying to scare the shit out of people
Grow up, for fuck's sake
"You know, the one that controls governments, the world's banks and the media."
You said that, you cowardly little twot - not more
Got over your fright, I see!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:01 PM

No Carroll only a moron states that somebody resigns from negotiations that have not yet started.

Sort of like stating that Kitchener was forced to resign when in actual fact he hadn't - That was one of yours wasn't it?

Only a moron states that the "magnificent seven" of 1916 did not collude with the Germans in the face of a stack of evidence as high as the bloody Matterhorn that they did - again one of yours.

I could go on but the list is endless.

As to the rest of your post - simply a personal slanging match - your usual default position, in short you Carroll are a complete and utter fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:48 PM

Am I alone in finding Teribus' posts abusive in the extreme.

He criticises one poster for alledgedly conducting a "personal slanging match" by referring to the poster as a moron and a "complete and utter fuckwit"

Hardly the response of an educated or erudite man.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:28 PM

No, you're not alone, Raggytash. But, if you have the time and to energy and are willing to flirt with insanity by taking him on, he's very easy to deal with, and instead of trying to engage in rational discussion, he allows himself to get more and more aerated, aggressive, frustrated, abusive, and, saddest of all, completely unable to focus on whatever argument he's supposed to be putting. Maybe one day he'll finally see it and give up. Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 02:38 AM

Ehmmm Raggy care to point out where I stated that Jim Carroll was a moron?

I think that if you look through the exchange you will find that that was how he referred to me - try reading:

Jim Carroll - 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean." - Teribus

Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out.

In response to that I referred to Jim Carroll as a complete and utter fuckwit - which in my book he undoubtedly is.

My advice to you Raggy would be that if you cannot read posts and understand what is written in them and cannot remember who wrote what you should keep your inaccurate and ill-informed comments to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM

"Am I alone in finding Teribus' posts abusive in the extreme."
You most certainly are not Raggy
He appears to have not come to terms with the fact that he is the most arrogant, least knowledgeable member of this forum - his arrogance is an attempt to mask his ignorance.
Comes from having to serve greasy fry-ups to burly sailors, I suppose.
I started to put up his friendly thoughtful responses to argument some time ago - I stopped when I thought I had made my point - apparently I was wrong.
This is a selection from another thread - sometimes 2, 3 or four per posting - plenty more untouched ones.
There's no getting around a 'superior intelligence who debates with such a thoughtful passionate desire to pass on what he knows in a friendly manner!!
Jim Carroll

Ah Christmas after wading through your usual pointless and ill-informed waffle it becomes abundantly clear that you simply didn't bother reading Trevelyan's letter then?

your words Christmas - not mine

so can we leave the inaccurate, hysterical, emotive, histrionics at the door.

You might have read Christmas, but your only problem is that you don't understand what it is you are reading
What's the matter Christmas you seem to stuttering or frothing a great deal today?

Yes it was Christmas

Just how pathetic can you get Christmas.

Ah Christmas:

You might have read Christmas, but your only problem is that you don't understand what it is you are reading

Ehmm Christmas

I normally do not respond Christmas because what you write is normally a complete and utter load of B'll'cks.

If you wish to make a point you should at least take the trouble and pay sufficient attention to correcting your mistakes before pressing the submit button - Pardon me for not guessing what it was you actually meant to write.

Don't know about you Christmas

Christmas:

Your bias, bigotry and hypocrisy are showing again Christmas.

Christmas,

Apples to Oranges Christmas.

Christmas:

Christmas:

Contains not one single word written by you Christmas

Examples of your mealy-mouthed waffle in response to a fairly direct and simple question:

Are you totally incapable of making your mind up on anything?

You have provided no answers at all Christmas just pointless waffle.
You keep prattling on

More pointless, massive, self-contradictory, unattributed, cut'n'pastes then Christmas? Pity that you couldn't master the art of presenting them just a little bit better.

Nielsen Christmas?

Awwww Christmas!!!

Don't worry Christmas, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to back up that accusation

From this thread or any other for that matter Christmas

Ehmmmm Not exactly true Christmas - you have deliberately sought to misrepresent the situation once more.

So then Christmas taking all of that into account:

Now that would suggest to me Christmas

Stop wriggling Christmas

Ehmmmm NO Christmas

Any substantive evidence at all to back that one up Christmas?

When it comes ability related to reading things and understanding what they are saying, believe me I do not need help from anyone - wish that the same could be said about you.

Here's how it seems to work Christmas - you post a load of idiotic, far-fetched, emotive, hysterical crap, most of it just made up - and then I take you to task for it - I then pull you up further on it and then you call me nasty names and sulk.

Rule Book Christmas?? What on earth are you going on about?

Now Christmas as YOU have brought this up:

Given up on the preposterous accusations and claims of deliberate genocide put forward by your good-self Christmas #

Policies leading to the famine Christmas?

Ready for your next question Christmas

OK then Christmas just to get the terminology correct and make it chrystal clear for ANYBODY that is still following this farce:

Now then Christmas let us review what you think the British Government should have done

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:21 AM

"My advice to you Raggy would be that if you cannot read posts and understand what is written in them and cannot remember who wrote what you should keep your inaccurate and ill-informed comments to yourself."
Classic!!!!
Seduced and abandoned - seems he has transferred his affections to you -I am devastated
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:50 AM

I've spent all my life upclose with someone just like him, Jim. Goes off half-cock and desperate to shout anyone else down almost before they've opened their mouths. Very quick to pounce on what he sees as their technical errors but so full of bluster and aggression that he loses all focus. Wonder whether there's a nice chap trying to get out...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 06:12 AM

'Wonder whether there's a nice chap trying to get out...'
Not unless he's a complete schizophrenic with a grandmother locked in the basement (perhaps he is a "Norman".
This is one nasty piece of work - just what a debating forum needs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:21 AM

Well he makes the likes of us look like saints, Jim. Just a pity that I'm an atheist and don't believe in 'em...



Wait for it....🦆

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 08:04 AM

Hey Raggy, before you are forced into the uncomfortable position of admitting that you are wrong - read down through JOM's list detailed in his post of Jim Carroll - 18 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM - then cut'n'paste the bit where I have called him a "moron" - that is what you accused me of wasn't it?

I see, and no doubt others will have noted it as well, that at no time on this thread have I ever referred to Jim Carroll as a "moron".

You said that you found that unacceptable, "abusive in the extreme" you said. OK Raggy let us see how much honesty and integrity you possess - in his post Jim Carroll implied that I was a "moron" now let us see your post condemning him. Don't panic Raggy I know from your track record that you are a hypocrite and that you do not possess any honesty or integrity, so the response to my request will be silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 08:47 AM

"I ever referred to Jim Carroll as a "moron"."

a bit nit-picking for somebody who regularly insults somebody by referring to documented links as "made up Carroll shit" and talks down to everybody who disagrees with him.
Your arrogance and insulting behaviour is legendary, as is your refusal to provide documented evidence for your outdated and reactionary right-wing opinions
From your own cut-'n-paste
Jim Carroll - 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean." - Teribus
Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out.
In response to that I referred to Jim Carroll as a complete and utter fuckwit - which in my book he undoubtedly is."
You start of aggressively and react badly when somebody replies in kind.
Your latest list of aggression, which you choose to ignore, is a tiny tip of years of abuse you have directed at people - "fuckwit", "moron", "made up shit" and permanent talking down to people is long established
standard practice for you.
Nobody behaves like you on this forum - you are on your own in your insulting and abusive behaviour (I don't count Bobad and other trolls - they don't have the balls to hang around for any length of time)
It would help if you brought anything to these discussions, but what little you might have to say is swamped into nothingness by you ugly arrogance - you know nothing and attempt to cover up your ignorance with bullying - as all bullies do.
This latest has been because you were presented with a number of facts you can't deal with - a typical response of yours
I suggest we move on and allow you to stew in your own bile - this is not what these discussions should be about
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 09:16 AM

"I see, and no doubt others will have noted it as well, that at no time on this thread have I ever referred to Jim Carroll as a 'moron.'"

No doubt others may NOT have "noted it" because things like this are way too boring to "note."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 10:13 AM

What Teribus has said is not in the same category as the language used by Jim, Dave and Steve......Racist, Fascist, Homophobe. as twenty times worse than calling someone stupid of even moronic.....but you don't realise how insulting your language is and moderators allow you to get away with it.

If, when President Obama was elected, someone had opened a thread to garner insulting nicknames, it would have been quite rightly closed immediately.......The Trump nickname thread is still up and running....and is contributed to by people who run this "unbiased" forum

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 10:47 AM

Racist, Fascist, Homophobe. as twenty times worse than calling someone stupid of even moronic

Blimey. I didn't know there was a scale of insults that we had to work to! How do you rate "complete and utter fuckwit", "great whingeing wassock" and "village idiot" then?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 11:02 AM

You didn't know there was a scale of insults Dave?   My, you've led a very sheltered life.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 11:03 AM

"What Teribus has said is not in the same category as the language used by Jim, Dave and Steve.."Racist, Fascist, Homophobe are analyses of what has been said - only Teribus deals in personal insulting to the extent he does
Yoi fit all those terms by dinbt of what you have said.
"The Trump nickname thread is still up and running"
You really aren't defending an open racist who consorts with gangsters and is probably being blackmailed by Russia over his sexual behavior, are you?
We're talking about personal insults aimed at other members, not satarising politicians - are you that desperate in your support for that slug that you suggest that this is not permissible?
You certainly don't respond to the facts put up about him
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 11:30 AM

"No Carroll, only a moron states thatsomeone has resigned from negotiations that have not yet started" Teribus 17th Jan 04.01pm

Will that do?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 12:49 PM

Ah but Raggy tell me which post came first

Jim Carroll - 17 Jan 17 - 02:52 PM

"Don't be stupid - only a moron has to have the obvious spelled out."

Or

Teribus - 17 Jan 17 - 04:01 PM

"No Carroll only a moron states that somebody resigns from negotiations that have not yet started.

If Jim Carroll wants to throw names about he should fully expect the compliment to be returned - he certainly has no grounds for complaint. In that exchange Raggy strictly speaking no-one is calling anyone a moron, but it was you (gallantly rushing to defend Jim) who incorrectly stated that I initiated the exchange by calling Jim a moron. As I have proved quite conclusively above the first person to introduce the word "moron" was Jim Carroll.

Meanwhile you still remain a hypocrite totally lacking in honesty or integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 12:59 PM

Sadly for you it is true, you behave like a moron. Beligerent, bullying, blustering, an uneducated buffoon of the first order.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 01:10 PM

My, you've led a very sheltered life.

I have indeed. Bus shelters, railway shelters, old air raid shelters. Wherever I could hide away for a smoke, can of beer or shag depending on what stage of puberty I was at.

Nowadays I know I used to enjoy them all but can't remember why...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 01:57 PM

"Ah but Raggy tell me which post came first"
THis one, if you want to play "he hit me first sir" "
"In that case Carroll learn to state what you actually mean."
My chosen name here is Jim Carroll - not Carroll and your arrogant suggestion that I need to "learn" anything is what started this of -, you put it up.
It is typical of the manner in which you address people
Is that how you've been brought up to address people?
You are the most unpleasantly arrogant individual on this forum and you have the least reason to be
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 02:58 AM

Raggytash - 18 Jan 17 - 12:59 PM

"Sadly for you it is true, you behave like a moron. Beligerent, bullying, blustering, an uneducated buffoon of the first order."

Care to explain this one then Raggy:

"Hi Teribus, Firstly I know this may be a bit of a shock to you, so apologises for that.

You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum." - From Raggytash addressed to Teribus requesting advice and information on a subject related to WWI

Raggy are you normally in the habit of seeking advice and information from - Beligerent, bullying, blustering, uneducated buffoons of the first order?

As I said Raggy you are a hypocrite without one shred of honesty or integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:05 AM

"As I said Raggy you are a hypocrite without one shred of honesty or integrity."
As I have said many times, you are a psychopathic coward who would never speak to people to their face the way you do from the safety of your anonymity.
Your behavior has become more and more manic of late, you haven't stopped throwing your toys out of your pram since you were presented with the facts about the Labour and Tory parties and have never really moved away from the time you proudly showed us your gun during one of our arguments (wasn't that when you were defending selling equipment to Assad?).
I sincerely hope they never ease the gun laws in Britain!
Give it a rest and start behaving like a rational human being.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 09:36 AM

Well then Jom what term would YOU use to describe someone who says one thing in public about someone yet states the exact opposite in private?

By the way what equipment did the British Government sell to Assad? You've been asked often enough to detail it along with substantive proof that anything was sold and delivered but so far over four years down the line you have been able to come up with S.F.A.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 10:07 AM

That PM was sent in Nov 2015, at the time one particular posters was spouting nonsense and your posts displayed a greater knowledge which I acknowledged.

Since that time your posts have become increasingly vitriolic, aggressive, irrational and in many cases downright bloody nasty.

I don't know what has happened in your life in the past 14 months but whatever it is it has had a detrimental effect your both you and your posts.

Perhaps you should reflect on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:05 AM

"Well then Jom what term would YOU use to describe someone who says one thing in public about someone yet states the exact opposite in private?"
I now what I would describe someone who gets the wrong impression of someon at first then learns different as he goes along - capable of being educated by experience.+Every time you have ben given a kicking you have got more and more vitriolic.
Look at what's hapened to you in a few days - totally out of control
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:05 AM

Raggytash,I think you are being unfair. Teribus has always been rather blunt, as we say up here "he disnae take any shite".

I don't correspond privately with Teribus other than seasonal greetings, but I'm pretty sure he, like myself, has become sickened by Steve Jim and a couple of others mobbing Keith and trying to intimidate him.
We should be able to converse here without all the insulting labels,

Teribus has called me an "eejit" many a time and when I think about it he's usually right    :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM

Ake, like anyone else on this forum you have and are entitled to your own opinions. I am merely stating the things I observe. There was a time when Teribus' contributions were valid, even though I disagreed with some of them.

However in the past year or so he has become increasingly atagnonistic, vitriolic and in many, many cases downright nasty. (PS I know I'm no saint, but at least I am aware of that)

I can only presume this is due to a change of circumstances and I do hope he will recover from this and return to being a reasonable human being.

However I suspect I will be treated to a tirade of abuse.

Time alone will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:53 AM

"he disnae take any shite".
He talks a lot of it though
"Teribus has called me an "eejit" many a time"
Musty have forgotten his medication - don't take it too hard
"mobbing Keith and trying to intimidate him."
The branch of the Klan closes ranks - Keith's dishonest and persistent insistence in making a fool of himself makes him his own worst enemy.
You cannot abandon any shred of self respect in order to win arguments and not attract criticism.
His behaviour is a form of bullying and he's happy to call us all liars and muppets whenever the mood takes him
Whatever Teribus knows or doesn't know is immaterial - he refuses to qualify anything he claim so it's all a bit iffy - it is his serial abuse that has been a permanent feature of his postings and has now gone beyond the pale.
You accuse us of being a "team", but you lot stick together like shit to a blanket
You need to look at your own behaviour before you point fingers
Have a good inauguration
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 03:37 PM

Thanks Jim, have a good Brexit   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:03 PM

It'll be even funnier when Scotland get independence and rejoin the EU won't it ake :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 05:47 PM

Not going to happen in the near future Dave, and by that time the EU will be long gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 03:13 AM

It'll outlast us, ake!

DtG