BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 03:38 PM

""Police rescue three male 'slaves' from traveller sites "
Mor racist newspaper hype - though the er, comes in inverted commas
Go look up an account of the dcharges and tell me how many times the term slave appears
Utterly meaningless newspaper hype and you know it - and racist to suggest otherwise.
These are the crimes of fout criminals - the fact that they are Travellers is immaterial

IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF SETTLED SLAVERY

OR THIS?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/30/migrant-workers-modern-day-slavery
Domestic
http://www.thenews.coop/98851/news/co-operatives/worker-co-op-sheds-light-britains-legal-slaves/
We fill our shops with goods made by workers working in comparable or worse conditions

SUCH AS THESE

OR THESE
OR EVEN WORSE
We are still a nation that thrives on slavery and people like you whine when people from these countries come to Britain to escape the conditions you help create
"Jim's posts in the last few months have become more irrational than usual.....disturbingly so."
And yours become more and more cowardly
I put up backing to what I say
When asked to substantiate your statements you do a rummer
I ask now - substantiate your accusation and let's see what happens
Spineless troll - let's see how fast you run from this one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 03:46 PM

Read his recent posts Shaw, Carroll inserting me into them even though I have not made a single comment on the topic. He has a pathologic obsession with me. It is a mental illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 03:55 PM

As for you saying that it should get me expelled Shaw...........give me a f*****g break already. How often have you seen someone, even a mod, post that someone is off of their meds. You do know what they are implying, don't you. If you think anyone should be expelled I can give you a list of who is most deserving.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 04:53 PM

"He has a pathologic obsession with me. It is a mental illness.
You are one of the gang Bobad - isn't that what you accuse us of?"
If yoiu ccuse me or anybody of mental illness again I shall demand you are removed from this forum
Who the fuck do you think you are - both you and Your homophobic friend
THat level of personal insult makes you the sicko you are
Again - no moderator when you need one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 05:11 PM

You Carroll, and your friend Shaw, can dish it out, ascribing all sorts of lies, distortions and calumnies about others but cry foul when you get back in kind. You are both hypocrites of the highest order and obsessive sickos.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 05:17 PM

By your posts ye shall be known. As the modern day immortal bard writ:

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 05:21 PM

Not only that, Jim - he's a stalker. Count how many times he's followed one of us around in the last few days only to post something akin to 💩💩💩 and nothing else, or to insult, but NEVER to make anything remotely resembling a debating point. Now he's making accusations of mental illness. He's desperate, Jim - and you've no need to guess what will follow this post. I note that he's cut out the childish "three turd" stuff after I accused him of stalking. Coward. Let him get on with it. I have a PM from one moderator expressing concern about his bad behaviour and asking me to draw their attention to his stalking. I haven't acted on it as yet. It would be nice if the mods saw these threads but I doubt that they bother with us. Pity. Bobad's days are probably numbered here. Just keep letting him have the rope. Matter of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 06:39 PM

I have a PM from one moderator expressing concern about his bad behaviour

As I one of yours Shaw, so fly your flag of self righteousness if you must but I will call your bluff.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:31 PM

No you haven't, and you know damn well that those of us who receive PMs are honour-bound not to reveal them in public. Why don't you try to be civil, address the issues raised here without your immature agenda and, well, just grow up? And haven't you bothered to notice that you get no support whatsoever from your allies when you accuse
people of being Jew-haters, when you accuse people of being mentally ill and when you stalk people with your silly three-turd rubbish? Their silence speaks volumes.

Do feel free to respond. For now, that's my lot. You're a waste of space.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:38 PM

Just try me......sucker!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:06 PM

Enough is enough
this is a politically rough and ready forum - that's expected, it comes with the territory and in a way, it can be stimulating.
When people start questioning something as serious as the state of their opponent's mental health is a different ball game altogether.
I don't have a lot of regard of what Bobad has to say - he is not particularly imaginative and tends to just repeat what others put up and confines the rest of his contributions to screeching insults at those who don't agree with him
Ake is a different matter altogether - he has questioned my sanity on half a dozen occasions now, and each time he has disappeared without being prepared to qualify his serious and deeply personal insulting behaviour.
A bridge too far, as far as I'm concerned.
If he had a shred of decency, he would withdraw what he has repeated over and over again, and apologise - or qualify his serious accusations with some examples of my mental problems.
I know, and he knows, that if he made such accusations off-line he would be liable to legal action, and if he behaved to anybody face to face he would run the serious risk of a smack in the mouth - nobody in their right mind accuses somebody of having mental problems unless they are qualified to make such an accusation.
He has already had one thread closed of late for his obsessive hatred of homosexuals and it seems that unfair that he is allowed to close another.
He won't apologise of course, nor will he withdraw his statements - he doesn't do that sort of thing.
Nor will he answer any of the arguments on any of the subjects he involves himself in - he doesn't do that sort of thing either.
If he or Bobad ever wade in the gutter with such personal insults again I will ask that they be expelled from this forum - as serious as some of us take these subjects, that is not what debating should be about.
I can put up with Bobad's mindless shrieking of "antisemite" - nobody other than his small circle of friends takes him seriously, and I suspect they find him an embarresment sometimes, but, as I said Ake is another matter, particularly because he takes himself seriously - spooky or what!!
As I said - enough is enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:55 PM

I don't give a shit, Jim. These people are minnows. Easy enough to deal with, like Teribus. All bluster and no trousers. And nothing to see without those trousers either, poor things. Anyway, I don't suppose you watched Mary Berry this week? She did a recipe with smoked haddock, cauliflower and spuds that I simply couldn't see working. Then I found a goodly lump of smoked haddock in me freezer that I forgot I had, so I gave it a whirl. It was a magnificent dish.

For two. You need:

Half a pound of spuds, peeled weight, cut into 3/4 inch cubes
A pound of smoked haddock, skinned and boned, cut into big chunks
One cauliflower, not massive, cut into bite-size florets
250ml double cream
A tablespoon of cornflower, creamed with a little bit of milk
Salt and pepper
Half a mugful of chopped parsley with snipped chives
100g grated cheese, cheddar will do though Mary goes for gruyere

Get a big pan and boil the spuds in well-salted water for 7 minutes.
Add the cauliflower and boil for another 5 minutes.
Meanwhile, gradually add the cream to the creamed cornflour and whisk. Avoid lumps. Season.

Drain then chuck the spud/cauliflower mix into a buttered gratin dish or something. Wot you make your lasagne in.

Sprinkle in half the grated cheese.

Add pepper. Salt maybe, but not much if at all.

Layer the haddock pieces on top. Carefully pour the cream into the cracks.

Sprinkle paprika on top

Bake at 180 fan for 25 minurtes.

You are alive again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:59 PM

Bugger. When I said sprinkle paprika on top, I should have said to sprinkle the rest of the grated cheese on top first.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:04 PM

No balls eh Shaw.

As for Carroll....whoa, the wind is blowing right through those ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:06 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:32 PM

This sentence - "Why don't you try to be civil, address the issues raised here without your immature agenda and, well, just grow up?" - coming from "chip" munching, cheap wine guzzler Shaw is a bit rich!!

For once Shaw why don't you follow your own advice?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:37 PM

Steve Shaw - 30 Mar 17 - 08:55 PM

Being civil and addressing the issues raised

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:35 AM

Raggytash - 30 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

Try reading what your pal wrote one more time this time paying a bit more attention Raggy.

"The reason that you never saw these common signs was probably because you were too busy looking for Traveller sites to firebomb" - Jim Carroll

The "probably" relates to not seeing signs Raggy, to read it your way the sentence would have read:

"The reason that you never saw these common signs was because you were probably too busy looking for Traveller sites to firebomb."

Some points for clarification Raggy:

1: I have never in my life ever seen any of these signs that your pal Jom says are common throughout mainland UK - Now how is that if they are so common? The example of such a sign that Carroll provides a link to, that Conn Mac Gabhann took such exception to, doesn't state any such thing as "Travellers Not Welcome" as Carroll insists - It doesn't bar or ban "Travellers" at all - which is probably why the CPS took no action in that particular case.

2: I can swear and affirm with total honesty that I have never firebombed, or considered firebombing anything or anybody in my life, and people had best be advised that to state in written form that I have had better have solid proof or face the consequences ( See Smith v Williams 2006)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM

I saw that Mary Berry programme, Steve, as I think I already mentioned. The haddock think looked wonderful. Guess the recipe is online? Must look it up. Mrs loves haddock as well so looks like a winner.

We went a bit left field yesterday with scrambled goose eggs. It was recommended that they are cooked in a bowl over a pan of boiling water so that is what we did. Added some shallots and mushrooms previously sweated in olive oil, some cream and seasoning. Served on plain old white toast. Highly recommended.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM

Dave,
Given the choice between someone does care and someone who wants to restrict freedoms for some and opposes anyone bettering themselves I wonder which sane people would chose?

Who are these people who " wants to restrict freedoms for some and opposes anyone bettering themselves "

Where do they post?
Can you quote any of them saying anything so despicable?

Don't be silly Dave. It just shows how little you have to say that you have to make shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:15 AM

Jim,
Mor racist newspaper hype -

That was The Independent!
Not a racist paper and they do not do hype.
They could sue you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

Just as we try to bring the discussion back to something sensible you go and spoil it Keith. There are plenty of people who would like to restrict freedom and want to keep people 'in their place'. I am sure they post in many places but why should I do your homework for you? Regardeless of any of that the question still stands.

Who would a sane person chose? Someone who cares about other people or someone who wants to oppress them? Nothing silly about asking that and your response is typical twist things to suit your agenda shit. If you want to practice your linguistic nonsense try someone else and stop bothering me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:36 AM

The recipe is online, Dave, but she gives quantities "for six" that wouldn't feed six sparrows (haven't checked whether sparrows eat smoked haddock...), so I've put my amounts in that produced two generous dollops. I get annoyed by recipes that specify a weight of spuds without telling you whether they mean peeled or unpeeled weight. Also, she says to pour the cream into the cornflour and whisk. That was a lump-laden disaster that forced me to get the electric blender out (more bloody washing up), which is why I said to cream the cornflour first with a drop of milk before stirring in the cream. Also, she said "pouring double cream." That means double cream! I prepared it hours in advance, so all I had to do was whack it in the oven. I like recipes like that, especially if I'm feeding the arriving hordes. Gives me more drinking time!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:41 AM

So Dave, you were only speaking hypothetically and did not have any actual person in mind.
What a pointless, silly post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM

"They could sue you."
No they couldn't - as you know yourself from the fact that you haven't faced charges againt the race hatred laws
We say what we wish on line
I did put up the fact that the term ;slave' appeared in inverted commas made it meaningless
You have yet to respond to the type of slavery Britain puts its name to - doubt if you will
I posted to Teribus's crassness earlier but it didn't make it
Will do later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:45 AM

Plenty of them around here, Keith!

Can you cook? 🐟🐟🐟🍟🍟🍟🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:01 AM

Independent headline (12hrs)

Third of voters may not vote for Labour because of alleged anti-Semitism, poll suggests
Finding comes as Ken Livingstone faces disciplinary hearing over 'anti-Jewish' comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jewish-news-ken-livingstone-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-a7659186.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:07 AM

"Independent headline"
Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck
Let's see if someone comes up with an actual account of what this 'antisemitism' consists of, shall we - then we might have a real debate instead of the lynch law accusations we have had from you so far
Aave we finished wit the "Traveller slavery" bit Keith
Always happens when your excuses dry up
Jim
Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:28 AM

What a pointless, silly post.

Is it as pointless and silly as post saying how pointless and silly a post is? Especially when, as Steve has already commented, there are plenty of those around here anyway :-)

But, once again, you are entitled to your opinions and, once again, I am entitled to not really give a shit about them. Now, can we get back to the important stuff?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM

A lot of very very very pointless and very very very silly posts around here, Dave. Any minute now Keith'll be telling us to stick to the point. Pointless. I might try that scrambled egg recipe of yours but with chuckie-'en eggs, by the way. I never watch Pointless, by the way. I think it's a very very very silly programme.



Wibble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:43 AM

Out of 100 people how many said that this thread was pointless?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:06 AM

Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck

Yep, them Jews can make people make anti-Semitic comments, just how do they do that, such power they have. That would go along with their power to control governments, world finance and the media. You are probably under their mind control too, that would account for your anti-Semitic comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:25 AM

Jim,
Aave we finished wit the "Traveller slavery" bit Keith

I have. I just wanted to make the point that it was a genuine issue and not at all racist to refer to it as you suggested.

Your claim that The Independent prints "racist hype" was laughable!

Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck

I have no idea what you are getting at, and I am sure I am not alone.
What exactly are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:54 AM

"We say what we wish on line" - Mistaken belief by Jim Carroll

I'd advise you to look up a Crown Court judgement in the Case of Smith v Williams reported in the Guardian in 2006.

We can say what we wish online - Careful

Particularly liked this bit Carroll:

"The judge said Ms Williams must not repeat the defamatory remarks, or in any way suggest Mr Smith is a sexual offender, a sexual deviant, a Nazi or a racist or having any such tendencies."

Now making wild and unsubstantiated allegations and indiscriminately calling people Nazis, fascists and racists on an internet forum. Remind you of anyone in particular who posts on this forum Carroll?

Must check up and see if Ms Williams was indeed made bankrupt or whether she did pay Mr Smith's costs and damages. What was it you accused me of being on that other thread Jim? Oh yes a "Firebomber", a racist and a fascist wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:08 AM

"Any minute now Keith'll be telling us to stick to the point." - Steve Shaw

Ah you mean something like you just recently did on this very thread Shaw:

""Why don't you try to be civil, address the issues raised here without your immature agenda and, well, just grow up?" - Steve Shaw

Tell me is there any particular reason that you wish to demonstrate to everybody who reads the contents of this forum that you are a liar and a hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:10 AM

Is that a pointless Pointless question, Dave? Would it be pointless to try to get Keith to tell boobs to stop being sillily pointless?

Hey, "sillily." Whaddam I like! 😂

Would it be pointless to make a point about the pointlessness or otherwise of pointillism? Try to avoid pointed remarks. I really can't be doing with people acting sillily.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:15 AM

"...indiscriminately calling people Nazis, fascists and racists on an internet forum. Remind you of anyone in particular who posts on this forum Carroll?"

Bobad?   Jew-haters? How are you with that, Teribus? OK is it because he's your mate? Or is it pointless to invite more pointless, inane invective from you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:30 AM

Well, up to now Steve I have been told that I am thick, that my shirts could make bell tents and that my morals are shit. None of which are true. How much do you think I would be in for if I sued the defamers? Or is it a pointless exercise?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:33 AM

Teribus:- An interesting case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/4829932.stm
I believe further changes to the law on defamation in the UK occurred in 2014, as summarised below.

https://www.ft.com/content/374299f0-295a-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca

I think in America Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has a similar intent.

I think many post insults with gay abandon below the line on mudcat. Some belong to the give and take of debate/discussion, others are more of a character assassination and deeply resented and hurtful and should not be posted.
   Perhaps everyone should step back a pace and reflect on this, and if required, modify their behaviour. No one wants to stifle free speech, but be careful of those epithets_ they could bite back.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:43 AM

Glad you addressed that to Teribus, as he is by far the worst offender on this forum. He can't post to address anything said by me, Jim, Dave or Raggytash without throwing in an insult, misusing our handles or calling us names. And I suppose that telling you to take your own advice would be pointless. And I never wear socks with sandals. Can you cook? Do you like smoked haddock? Are you a piscivore?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:50 AM

I smoked one of them haddocks once. It was, hey, like, wild, man...

Anyone remember the Beverley Hillbillies? One of my lasting memories of it was Jethro dressed as Robin Hood collecting a bunch of hippy followers who sang about smoking crawdads.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:02 AM

I think that Keith, Teribus and Iains have haddock up to here with us, Dave. Especially Teribus. Eel be doing his nut, I reckon. Still, what a boring thread. So much nicer to fillet with recipes. Think I'll go out and get soused tonight....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:05 AM

Well I suppose I'm in the clear, as I've been reported to the police several times for daring to point out the recorded negative aspects of male homosexuality ......so far I have had no communication from the police.....other than the "thought police". :0)

Dave and Steve are just stupid spoiled children, Jim has lost the plot a long time ago and no longer allows anything to register which contravenes his view of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:14 AM

"I have. I just wanted to make the point that it was a genuine issue and not at all racist to refer to it as you suggested."
The way it was handled by the press in making it a traveller issue rather than a criminal one was racist
It was a crime committed by criminals who happened to be Travellers, nothing more than that
You have been given examples in which similar types of activity are ignored by by Britain and not made "British" crimes, yet you and your ilk have raised them as examples of Traveller behaviour, and expanded on it - that is what makes it racist.
"Your claim that The Independent prints "racist hype" was laughable!"
The press in general goes in for such hype, the Independent being one of the better ones who, on this occasion, put the term 'slavery' in inverted commas, to their credit - most of the rest of the press didn't bother.
It has no place in an argument about prejudice against Travellers and it was racist for Teribus to have raised it here.
The description "slave" was a misnoma anyway, unless you include Dell Computers under the same heading
Still no comment on the far worse conditions we British benefit from - I don'rt wonder why, strangely enough!!
"I have never in my life ever seen any of these signs that your pal Jom "
Still the insecure "Jom" - always a sign that you are floundering and blustering.
The fact that you have not seen the signs in immaterial to this argument - neither had we until we started to be involved with Travellers.
Tou have been given masses of information on their existence, including references to how common they were - you choose to nit-pick about one case
"It doesn't bar or ban "Travellers" at all - which is probably why the CPS took no action in that particular case."
It does just that - if you had read what has been put up, signs worded like this wrere put up and had the same effect of barring Travellers. and, we have been told by Travellers, still do.
I very much doubt if the incidents got as far as the CPS - the police are noted for not bothering with such incidents.
In the mid eighties the Travellers mounted a campaign to get more sites and the vast majority were forced to camp illegally.
A small number of them moved onto prominent public land, contacted the local press and waited for something to happen - one of those demonstrations took place on Streatham Commom
A workmate who knew of my interest, told me (somewhat gleefully) that his brother-in-law and some of his friends from Streatham were intending to attack and burn one of the caravans to scare the Travellers off.
I thought about going to the police, but having had a number of experiences with them, instead I contacted Traveller activist, Roy Wells, who was camped a mile away from our home.
Roy contacted the police, but as an extra precaution, he went to the camp and put them on alert
As a further precaution, I told my workmate I had passed on the information.
The police did nothing - they never followed the report up, they never contacted Wells, they never contacted the Travellers on the site - nothing - no, not entirely true.
About a month later we got a visit from two boys in blue who asked us what contact we had with Travellers and would we report any criminal activity we came across ---- end of story.
I could spend days relating such stories, but I'm pretty sure you would pass it off as Carroll lies and bullshit.
THe police's attitude to Travellers was very much part of the "institutional racism" they found themselves guilty of after the Stephen Lawrence fiasco.
I have no doubt whatever that you have never been involved in a firebombing - your type never have the balls to get your hands dirty in following up your prejudices.
You racist stereotyping adds fuel to the hatred that already exists towards Travellers and, as far as I am concernd, you are as resonsible as the one who throws the firebomb and pours the petrol - "they also serve who only stand and wait", as the saying goes.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:14 AM

Perhaps another thread ir required and then we can have a poll of who is regarded as the worst offender. I suspect it would be shaw and carroll, purely on the volume of burblings. Shaw 15000 since around 2006.
Jim 18000 since 2007. Me just over 400 since 1999. When it comes to insults I am definitely amateur status compared to you Shaw and yes I can cook and would not be seen dead in sandals. And I can eat most things but palm tree grubs in Nigeria is a bit too bush tucker for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:18 AM

Dave and Steve are just stupid spoiled children

Ooooh, there is another couple of grand :-)

Steve - On yer motor pike and side carp or I'll sing you that Welsh classic 'Whale kipper whelk-on in the hillsides'. And I'm not codding.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:35 AM

What I suggest you do, Iains, is review all of Steve and Jims posts to get the percentage of them that are insulting, patronising or defamatory. Then do the same with those from Teribus, bobad and ake. What you should end up with is facts rather than suspicions and at least it will keep you too busy to pester anyone on here for a month or two.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:47 AM

I meant to add to the above posting - try putting a notice up saying "blacks by appointment only"
"I suspect it would be shaw and carroll, purely on the volume of burblings.
Another visit from another troll with nothing to say
I suggest yougo count the number of postings you have made that don't contain insults and compare them with the ones that do - but to so before the betting shop closes - I'd like to but a bet on thet one!!
Grow up for fucks sake - if you have nothing to say, say nothing like all children should
Whats is the matter with you morons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:57 AM

We had a Scotsman flying past our village earlier today. Hope it is a better behaved one than the one on here. I'm going to try and catch him on the return journey as I missed the Tornado.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:20 AM

Bobad?   Jew-haters? How are you with that, Teribus?

Very easy to verify according to the definition adopted by the majority of civilized countries, the UK police force and the Labour party of the UK.