BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 04:01 PM

"I did not suggest that Steve used the expression "lying bollocks."
He used the expression "bollocks" five times in just two lines of his earlier post. That is what I referred to" (15.2.17 12.44pm)

HOWEVER EARLIER YOU POSTED:

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such. I find your lies and evasions despicable" (15.2.17 09.21am)

Did you or did you not post these professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:21 PM

He did, he did, he DID! 🤡

Now we need to define terms here. When we speak of lying bollocks we must assume that we agree that we are not referring to the disposition of the aforementioned family jewels within the frontal trouser department. In that matter we do not speak of which way the said danglies "lie," but instead of "which way one dresses." I mean, toujours la politesse, eh, chaps? Personally I dress to the left, but hey. It doesn't mean that my tackle are hard left, but that thought invites diversions that are inappropriate on this mixed forum so let's not go there. Uninvited anyway. No, we speak of the untruths routinely propagated by those usual suspects who don't actually think they are usual suspects. Ironically, the term "lying bollocks" was coined by a man who accused yours truly of coining the phrase, as Raggytash has demonstrated. What I'm trying to say is that the man who invented lying bollocks then accused me of inventing lying bollocks is talking lying bollocks.

Can you have "truthful bollocks?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:45 PM

the man who invented lying bollocks then accused me of inventing lying bollocks is talking lying bollocks.

Sounds rather like the Trump-Conway-Spicer trio, dunnit?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:53 PM

Nah, they're nuts. Er, which I suppose could be the same thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 07:48 PM

I hope you fellers are lying down while you write bollocks
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 08:21 PM

It's worth pointing out that "bollocks" does not always carry pejorative undertones. Consider the following construction:

"Cor, that Liverpool striker scored a hat-trick against that bunch of three-legged cart-horses known as Manchester United. The bloke is the absolute bollocks!"

(Depending on where you come from, "dog's dangly bits" or simply "dog's danglies" may be inserted in place of "bollocks." Not literally inserted).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:12 AM

Dave, I have been visiting family, mostly in Cornwall, who I have mostly not seen since I became ill. It was lovely thank you.
I had intended staying in touch, but the time just evaporated.

I do not think it unreasonable to reply to points specifically put to me, especially Jim's claim that I had posted something anti-Semitic when he was the only one who had done that!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

Rag,
Did you or did you not post these professor.

Of course I did. I referred to Steve's repeated use of the expression "bollocks" in his previous post, as I have already explained at least twice Rag!

Returning to the discussion, has no-one a comment to make about the Labour Student Leader confirming Baroness Royale's view that her report had been ignored and no action taken to stop the anti-Semitism she reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM

Glad to hear it Keith. You should have popped in to see Steve! You could have both talked bollocks in the pub then go for a lie down :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

Very nice here this week. Daffs out everywhere, third sunshiny day in a row today, mercury low to mid-teens, lots of territorial birdsong, celandines shining bright like little gold stars. Reet grand. Even got me grass cut on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM

You suggested Steve used the term "lying bollocks" he did not. You then denied you had said this ........ a lie.

Even when confronted with the truth you lie yet again.

To quote yourself " I find your lies and evasions despicable" (15.2.17 09.21am)"

I am sure I am not alone in finding your posts tedious and tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 09:08 AM

Ye gods, it's a truly gorgeous day here. Might go for a stroll on the cliffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 09:16 AM

It's even warm in Bradford although slightly overcast. No cliff to walk along but have I mentioned I am going to Ribblehead tomorrow?

:D tG

Got a bit of a bug though :-( Sore-throaty and wheezy. Hope the alcohol cure works...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 09:55 AM

Pack of trolling hyenas still at it I see - SSDD.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:01 AM

" No cliff to walk along"
Here's a solution to your problem, - then you both can meet on neutral ground with Raggy and me and have a pint - but please leave Keith at home, especially know how her regards the Irish (brainwashed morons)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:14 AM

Rag,
You suggested Steve used the term "lying bollocks"

No I did not. He had just used the expression "bollocks" five times in one post and I referred to that, as I have repeatedly explained to you.

Dave, have you given up trying to make the case that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties, and is at least doing something about it?

We see no complaints of it from other parties, and all the evidence is that the problem is still not being addressed by Labour.
We have had that stated by Tom Watson, Sadiq Khan, Baroness Royale and now Kate Dearden, so that case must be considered knocked flat.
Labour does have a particular problem with anti-Semitism, and is failing to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:19 AM

Jim, the Irish are no more "brainwashed" or "moronic" than any other ethnic group.
Why this insatiable need to smear me with lies Jim?
It can only be because you are utterly incapable of challenging anything that I actually say!
It does not make you look good Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 11:16 AM

Dave, have you given up trying to make the case that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties....

At least Dave admits that there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party unlike those others who deny it, understandably so as they are in agreement with the anti-Semitic utterances that have emanated from Labour's anti-Semites.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 11:48 AM

"Jim, the Irish are no more "brainwashed" or "moronic" than any other ethnic group.
Keith -
You described Irish chilen as having been brainwashed by their education system, yet you were totally unable to produce evidenvce of it, claiming you had been told it by one of your mythical "historians"
You repeated it over and over again on several Irish threads
On this forum you have claimed the Jewish members of parliament have refused to disclose the nature of the "antisemitism" they are supposed to have been subjected to because of their love for their party - a 'Jewish pact of silence'
When I repeated it here, you accused me if antisemitism
You are one of the most despicably dishonest people I have ever encountered - it is little wonder you are regarded with the ridicule that you are.
"At least Dave admits that there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party"
Bobad
Nobody has ever claimed that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party - what has been claimed that it is not the major problem that is being claimed and that the accusations have been looked into and found to be groundless.
Antisemitism is the oldest form of bigotry and is to be found in every section of society
When Labour was accused of it, the accusations were taken seriously and found not to be a serious problem - end of story.
I ask again, Keith has repeated on numerous occasions that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to descrbe the antisemistims because of their love for their party
Do you not find that antisemitic?
I have no intention of participating in this mindnumingly dishonest thread - I just wanted to set the record straight.
If you can't be honest, as far as I am concerned you can piss off
You've fucked up enough threads - the pair of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 12:12 PM

Walked on the cliffs between Widemouth Bay and Bude, then down to Bude canal. Pleasant underfoot, very mild and sunny with a lovely sky. Gorse in full regalia already, and we saw primroses, snowdrops, periwinkles, daffodils and scurvy-grass in bloom. There was a little egret in the river just by the castle. Looking like a vintage sunset coming up. Sorry to be such a hyena-like troll. Let sleeping bollocks lie!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 12:48 PM

"There was a young lady from Bude....
Did you meet her Steve?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Dave, have you given up trying to make the case that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties, and is at least doing something about it?

Well, that all depends what you mean by given doesn't it Keith. I have made my point so there is little point in making it again. And again. And again. And again. And again...

So, no I have not given up on the point but there is no mileage in discussing it any further. That is how I have time for the more pleasant things in life. Like Ribblehead, steam trains, wild flowers and holidays. You must try it sometime :-)

At least Dave admits that there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party unlike those others who deny it

No one has denied it bobad. You are fighting a straw man.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 02:52 PM

Jim,
You described Irish chilen as having been brainwashed by their education system, yet you were totally unable to produce evidenvce of it,

Both you and Steve have vilified the Catholic Church for brainwashing children, and Catholic education is particularly influential in the Republic, so presumably this is an issue for both of you.

I quoted two historians who both said that the Irish school system taught a version of history that placed far more blame on Britain than was reasonable. One actually used the word "indoctrinate" which is synonymous with "brainwashing."

On this forum you have claimed the Jewish members of parliament have refused to disclose the nature of the "antisemitism" they are supposed to have been subjected to

Repetition of this lie of yours does not make it any less of a lie Jim!

I have never claimed any such nonsense, and nor would I!

I said that they made their complaints, replete with full details, to the Party leadership for them to deal with.
Those complaining of misogyny and homophobia within the Party did exactly the same.

I also quoted from a post of yours where you appear to make the claim yourself that you falsely accused me of making!

Here it is again,
Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 07:56 PM

"Can you describe the antisemitism that is taking place and the numvbers concerned Keith
No - of course you can't - the Jewish members have entered into a pact of silence to hide it.
Game over I think Keith"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:03 PM

Dave,
I have made my point so there is little point in making it again.

But you have not made the point Dave. Stating it is not making it.

If it is an issue for all parties, why are there no complaints about it from those other parties as there are from Labour?
Why has the leadership and so many prominent members acknowledged that it is a serious problem for the party?

Unless you can answer that, you have no case.

If as you claim, Labour is working to address the issue, why are so many prominent people, all in a position to know, adamant that nothing has been done?

If you can only witter on about trains and flowers but not answer those basic questions, you have not made your point at all!
Are you going to?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:08 PM

Keith. I have made my point. You think I have not. There is absolutely no point in discussing it any further with you. We will never agree.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Now, can we discuss sensible things like trains, flowers and bollocks without these constant interuptions please?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:13 PM

Steve, given my current state of man flu and the overall age of our party being slightly more than that of Methuselah I am pretty sure we will only do about 5 miles on Saturday afternoon. That sounds like a good case for the Ingleton waterfalls walk. What should I be looking out for at this time of year on limestone, beside rivers and falls and in the deeper gorges?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM

"Rag,You suggested Steve used the term "lying bollocks"

I suggested no such thing, you did.

"No I did not. He had just used the expression "bollocks" five times in one post and I referred to that, as I have repeatedly explained to you."

Yes you did "professor" It is here in black and white recorded for prosperity for all to see, you quote is below.

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, TO USE STEVE'S EXPRESSION"

Your quote, verbatim,you said Steve used the expression "lying bollocks" he did not and never has done as he stated very clearly.

You are completely unprincipled, dishonest, deceitful and you consider yourself to be a Christian.

I trust you can sleep easy with your lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

Dave, you can discuss anything you like, but you are clearly unable to make that point or explain how it can possibly be true in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

My point is that anti-Semitism is a particular problem for Labour and nothing is being done about it.
I have made that point by quoting numerous prominent people within Labour who are well placed to know the facts, all adamant that it is a particular problem and it is not being dealt with.

What have you produced Dave?
Sorry, but just stating a point is not making a point.

You had better just stick to the trains and flowers.
Off you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:36 PM

Rag,
" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, TO USE STEVE'S EXPRESSION"

Yes, I said that though I did not shout.
Steve's expression I referred was "bollocks" not "lying bollocks" for the simple and obvious reason that he did not use the latter.
He had used the former 5 times in a post just before mine.

Perhaps I should have identified the expression with quotes, but as Steve had just used it five times in one post the meaning would be obvious to anyone of intelligence and not deliberately trying to stir up an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

He does it all the time, Raggytash. Tell you what. I'll get him to waste even more his time by reminding him of how he did similar over Geoffrey Wheatcroft all those years ago, when he blatantly misrepresented what poor old Geoffrey said and refused to admit it. It's the refusing to admit it that grates, innit, if you let it. Which it doesn't with me, but how I love to remind him of his double standards. So typical of the man.

But why spoil a beautiful day! Dave, it's a bit early to expect the wildlife to have woken up much in t'Dales. You might catch a few of the smaller evergreen ferns such as wall-rue, maidenhair spleenwort and green spleenwort (a bit special, that one, but common enough on limestone rocks and walls). Lots of mosses and liverworts stand out at this time of year before all those big flowering wotsits get going. I've done the Ingleton waterfall walk several times. Don't slip! I'm envying you here!

Yours truly,

Steve (hyena-like forum troll for refusing to talk about LAP, aka "Labour's antisemitism problem," preferring instead to look up from mud to stars! )

Jim, I've "met" a number of young ladies from Bude, but can't discuss 'em in case Mrs Steve's discovered my password...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:17 PM

I am grateful that in less than 4 weeks I will be back in Ireland where I have far better things to do than argue with a pathological liar.

The thing that does surprise me though is that the ONLY person who does not recognise this fact is the liar himself.

Over the course of my life I have met and worked with many people with psychological disorders.

Seldom, if ever, have I ever met with someone as dysfunctional as this man.





Thank God I'm not a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:38 PM

I was just going to switch off but you deserve an explanation at least, Keith. It is blatantly obvious that on this we are on a completely different wavelength. I am sure we have lot of things in common but politics is not one of them. I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is. You started the contention. It is up to you to prove it and, so far, you have not.

Let's face it though. This is not about the issue, it is about you. You do this in everything and, fair enough, if you enjoy arguing, then go for it. But don't expect people to fall in with it. Let us examine what is going on. Any debate is based around trying get someone to agree to something. We know that in this case, as in many others, you will never get people to agree with your points so what is the other motive? You like to win. That is proven with your constant 'You lose' comments. Again, fine, if you feel the need to win then feel free. You have won. Easy. But the victory is rather hollow if we do that isn't it. You want to prove people wrong and show what a mighty intellect you have. Again. Prove away. No skin off my nose and if it makes you feel better then it does do some good.

From now on I will make my point and you are free to disagree if you like but don't expect me to continue the argument so you can flex your intellectual muscles as if you were on a Californian beach. Greg came out with a wonderful expression the other day. "Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk". I intend to make it my maxim from now on.

Anyroads, on to much more interesting subjects. I admit being a philistine and enjoying the BBC series 'Death in Paradise'. I think they have made a brave move recently to replace Kris Marshall as the inspector with Ardel O'Hanlan. He really was quite good but I keep expecting him to say "Why is that then, Ted?". But then again, I have got used to Danny John-Jules not being a cat :-)

I may be on briefly tomorrow but after that I may be out of internet range. Did I mention I am going to Ribblehead?

:DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:01 PM

Oh, and before you start going on about people going off topic remember this. It is your modus operandi to find any perceived weakness and dig and dig and dig at it until someone bleeds. You brought this on yourslef. You stated quite categorically I would be delighted to share my holiday stories, but in PMs. I get very annoyed when others start talking about such things on a discussion thread

Did you seriously not expect anyone to pick up on that in light of the tactics you use?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:07 PM

We love Death In Paradise. Am I to understand that tonight's was the last in this series?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:11 PM

Next week's I think, Steve. Catherine is standing for Mayor and another candidate is stabbed to death. The trailer indicates that Catherine is a suspect.

Cheets

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:21 PM

Ah, right. I think I was topping up my glass when next week's trailer was on...🍷🍷🍷

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 07:28 PM

"Am I to understand that tonight's was the last in this series?"
What happened?
Just watched it and Ardal O'Hanlon (Father Ted's Father Dougal) was the new detective
What am I doing with my life?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 07:50 PM

I'm discriminating when it comes to telly and I don't watch it much, but Death In Paradise is a very well-crafted bit of silly escapism. It's only once a week and I have to brace myself for Question Time. Escapism balanced against self-flagellation. Life can't all be a vale of tears,dammit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:34 AM

" is a very well-crafted bit of silly escapism"
How dare you - what did Matt Busby say about football!!!
(Joking really - much prefer that Castle and (sighhhhh) Beckett).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM

It's a damn sight better than reading some of this crap, Jim :-)

Anyroads, still in the grips of man flu, or maybe maningitis, but by regular administration of appropriate drugs I am sure I can bravely soldier on with the weekend. The appropriate drug for this evening could well be something from Dent brewery.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM

Maningitis, you didn't catch that in Manningham Lane did you. Could be nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:22 AM

Rag and Steve, it must be hard for you not having anything genuine to criticise me for.
Sorry.
You have been trying for over two years to smear me for misquoting Wheatcroft, who supported my argument on WW1 completely, when the sad fact is that I quoted the disputed passage in full and you just missed it.

Now bollocks gate is another attempt to make something out of nothing.
Steve made a post using the expression "bollocks" five times, and I commented on it.
Anyone reading my post would have just read Steve's and known exactly what I meant. You pretend not to, because you have absolutely nothing else on me and no answer to my arguments.

How sad all this scheming to smear me must look.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:32 AM

Sad, Keith? I'll tell you what's sad!




No I won't...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

Dave, what is it you imagine I have brought on myself?
I am not aware of anything.

This is not about the issue, it is about you

People try to make it about me, but I keep to the issue.

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is. You started the contention.

Completely untrue Dave!
All the complaints and accusations came from within Labour. I just reported them here, and found great amusement in people here arguing that all those prominent Labour insiders were wrong and that they knew much more about it!!

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is

Wrong again Dave. It was the contention of all those prominent Labour insiders, including the whole leadersip, that it is.
How can you possibly imagine that you know more about it?!!

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people.
A belief based on what Dave? Preconception and prejudice, or just a whim?

The FACT is that such complaints have not emerged from any other party.
Just Labour.
The FACT is that the whole leadersip and numerous prominent insiders acknowledge that it IS a particular problem for Labour.
The FACT is that many also claim that nothing is being done about it.

Now, what are YOUR facts Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong.

We all know you want to "win" whatever the cost, however much you are, and are proved to be, dishonest and deceitful.

The only person you are fooling is yourself, and you're probably not even achieving that.

Now that is truly sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM

Rag,
The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong.

Quote the lie then Rag. The expression I referred to was "bollocks" not "lying bollocks" as you falsely claim.

I remember you faking quotes from historians. When I found the originals, you had edited them to reverse their meaning in a blatant attempted, lying deception.

I will take no lectures on the truth from a liar like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:59 AM

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such. I find your lies and evasions despicable" (15.2.17 09.21am)


Not the first time I have had to post this. Clearly "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" irrefutably "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression"

No doubt you will deny it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM

Raggytash - 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

"The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong."

Only trouble with that Rag-arse for you and the rest of the "usual suspects" who have been "mobbing" Keith A now for over five years is that in flinging out these accusations of "lying" none of you have been able to come up with one single example of any lie he has told. Why is that Raggy?

This by the way will be yet another direct question that Raggy will fail to answer.

Looking through a number of current threads that have been hijacked by inane waffle and look at those participating (DtG, Shaw, Raggy, Jim) any claims by any of you of not acting in concert are patently meaningless and far from credible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM

OK Terikins, show me where Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"

That should be easy for you shouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM

It's not troll feeding time yest Raggy - don't spoil him; he'll come to expect it
"Dent brewery"
Did you hear the story of the Brewery Worker (never been able to take Dent's seriously) who fell into the vat and droned?
His wife was called to the scene and she asked, "did he die right away?"
"No", came the reply, "he climbed out for a piss three times".
Jim Carroll