BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM

PPS
"Why have you brought it back?"
You know why I brought it back - you asked for evidence oif your extremism - I obliged
I take comfort from the fact that it will always be on hand whenever needed - a handy reference
Any examples of Keith's claimed quotes yet Teribus?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:53 AM

By the way
I knew numerous cases of fathers in white families who beat the shite out of their daughters when they learned they had black boyfriends and at least to occasions of a daughter being ejected from her home when she refused to end the relationship.
I knew Jewish families in Manchester who, progressive in their views as they were, violently opposed to mixed marriages in their families.
I wonder if this counts as "cultural implanting" in the sick minds of these bigots
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"The line that was being peddled was that Jack Straw was talking rubbish"
No - the being peddled was that Keith deliberately distorted it to fit his racist agenda.
Straw commented on what he believed to be an over-representation anmonfg certain communities, but went on to point out that many of the people concerned were behaving no differently than youths from other communities who indulged in underage sex.
I doubt of less than half of the pupils in the last two terms of my school hadn't had sex with someone of the same age - we had no Muslims in our school.
What Straw made as an opinion was taken up as a definitive statement and the outcry that followed was not in the actual statement but the fact that it was being taken out of context by people like Keith and Teribus to promote an Islamophobic hate agenda.
This pair continue that quest.
There is no documented evidence to suggest that the Muslim community is any more prone to underage sex than any other, in fact, the moral standards are are higher than those in Britain.
Those Muslims who were involved were misfits, not typical of their communities - Jack Straw was referring to 50 cases.
Both Teribus and Keith are now openly declared racists, which is what I was hoping to establish.
The former is stereotypical with his little Urban Legend anecdotes and his crude thuggishness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

Missed the point again Shaw. The line that was being peddled was that Jack Straw was talking rubbish

The "stories" represent personal experience that confirms that what Jack Straw stated about the Rotherham sex gang view of vulnerable children existed in the UK in the 1960s and the 1980s - so I recognise that for those British-Pakistani men who were tried and convicted just recently in ten British cities their fathers and their grandfathers held exactly the same views - "cultural implant" - nothing whatsoever to do with their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:57 AM

Jim,
they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan."

Straw links the offending (the grooming, raping and trafficking of vulnerable children, typically but not exclusively orphanage children) to the culture.

We had this discussion in 2011.
Why have you brought it back?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM

I must say, Teribus, I think your comment of 21 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM was quite good. Humour is far better than bile. You should use it more often.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

Talk about missing the point. Misogynistic talk happens in both the presence and absence of women. I was a sixth-former myself for two years and I was a sentient being at the time enjoying a reasonable memory. For rugby read football, cricket or any other male-oriented sport, clot. And, once again, you profess to know what my life experiences have been and you stand in judgement of my teaching career even though you have never met me nor seen me in action. Typical response from an uneducated ex-naval Dhobi wallah, I'd say (there, see how unpleasant assumptions based on prejudice can be?) You gave us two nicely-barbered little anecdotes. If you really want those to stand as blanket evidence of the attitude of certain non-white cultures to "western women," I'd say that makes you a.... finish it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 03:50 AM

"Really Jim? What fairy story did you get that from? "
Oh - for fuck's sake - you arrogant shit
Really Jim? What fairy story did you get that from?
Violence has been part of Irish life throughout English rule - your unqualified denials have become mindlessly boring.
Your pathetic Islamophopbic anecdotes are just that - pathetic.
I worked for Muslim customers for over twenty years and at no time did I meet with a single piece of abuse or even bad manners - not once.
Many of them became friends, as a visiting tradesman, they rgularly fed me and provided intelligent and entertaining company whenever we found time to talk
I felt far easier discussing my atheism with them than I did with many of my English customers.
I have never met a group of people as tolerant as they were, quiet and respectful to me, to their neigbours, and even tolerant to the scum who poured shit through their letterboxes, or daubed their walls with obscene graffiti, or made their children's journey to school a gauntlet of hate.
When I read shitty litle urban legends like your I am always reminded of the old Giles cartoon in The Daily Express depicting wounded Notting Hill rioting thugs being greeted on the hospital steps by black doctors and nurse ready to treat their wounds.
It is white-superior people like you who think it funny to order a meal in an Indian restaurant, abuse the staff and smash the place up when they leave, who are the problem, not well behaved, intelligent and industrious Muslim guests of the nation.
Arrogance and aggression sometimes elicits a sharp response - you appear incapable of learning that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 01:55 AM

" The trouble with your little anecdotes, Teribus, doubtless cleaned up a little for the telling, is that they don't tell one tenth of the story of what really goes on from boardroom to rugby changing room to sixth-form classroom to pub to workplace to back-street hangouts. You'll hear all those views on "western women" (for chrissake!!) in all those places. Oh, and probably on board those ships you sailed the oceans on." - Shaw

Well let's see Shaw, what were the comments you said you'd hear again:

"I've seen sexist, misogynistic, cat-calling, wolf-whistling, get yer tits out, drop 'em blossom, threatening slagging-off of women from plenty of white men."

In boardrooms? From that it can be plainly seen that you've never sat in a boardroom in your life.

Rugby changing rooms? Not accessible to the general public and not frequented generally by women going about their normal daily lives.

Sixth form classroom? Just shows you what a piss poor teacher you must have been then Shaw.

The Pub and back street hang-outs? Are they known for being busy thoroughfares Shaw?

In ships? My time at sea there were no women at sea.

You are saying that this sort of behaviour is normal - the "sexist, misogynistic, cat-calling, wolf-whistling, get yer tits out, drop 'em blossom, threatening slagging-off of women" - in which case you have no objection, as Jim Carroll apparently has, to the reported, candid, off the record "locker room" remarks previously made way back in time by the current President of the United States of America.

The trouble with your understanding of my little anecdotes Shaw was that both locations were very public, the remarks were made loudly in a foreign tongue that those speaking it made the mistake of thinking nobody would understand. I have never encountered anything similar to what you describe in a public place with women present by anyone using the English language. If you have then as the old saying goes, "You can always judge a man by the company he keeps" - And the pig got up and slowly walked away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:55 PM

My apologies Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:36 PM

It might have been, though, Raggytash. Think of it as an alternative fact! Anyway, Keith and Teribus are nobbut two cheeks o't'same arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:15 PM

Al, it wasn't Keiths father in law.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:55 PM

More than wobble, Al. Turn into a tabletop to put his pint on, more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:52 PM

i'm so glad Keith's father in law stuck his hooter in using perfect urdu.

would you do the samr if you heard a white lad saying - that one shags like a rattlesnake.

its the sort of thing virginal young men have been saying since Adam felt his figleaf wobble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:27 PM

Well in my time I've mixed it with the best and worst of 'em. I've seen sexist, misogynistic, cat-calling, wolf-whistling, get yer tits out, drop 'em blossom, threatening slagging-off of women from plenty of white men. The trouble with your little anecdotes, Teribus, doubtless cleaned up a little for the telling, is that they don't tell one tenth of the story of what really goes on from boardroom to rugby changing room to sixth-form classroom to pub to workplace to back-street hangouts. You'll hear all those views on "western women" (for chrissake!!) in all those places. Oh, and probably on board those ships you sailed the oceans on. From black, white, yellow, Christians, Muslims, Jews and none of the above. The world over. So God knows what you're trying to prove.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM

"I saw over a door in am old Mill just outside Keighley today saying 'Work Peoples Entrance'. Made me smile and reflect that we have come a long way. Sad that so many want to drag us back there :-(

Aw Gnome don't speak about Jeremy in that way - you might get reported

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:50 PM

Talk of bad behaviour, at Odsall in Salford, back in the 70's when I occasionally frequented the area, the Alsatians went round in three's.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:25 PM

Spent the day ferrying people and things between the Aire Valley and Haworth. Two of the loveliest places you could visit and, smack between them, the town of Keighley with its high Muslim population. All of whom I am sure would not recognise the description Keith and his sychophants put forward. Don't get me wrong, there are Muslim prats there as well as Christian prats. Mostly to do with young blokes flexing their muscles in suped up hot hatches. But they are far less threatening than walking the streets of Salford at throwing out time on a Saturday night.

Not a lot to do with the Labour party either way so I guess that no one would object if I mentioned the sign I saw over a door in am old Mill just outside Keighley today saying 'Work Peoples Entrance'. Made me smile and reflect that we have come a long way. Sad that so many want to drag us back there :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:11 PM

"These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat." - Jack Straw

A couple of stories for you related to the above:

1: Bus journey in Derby in the late 1960s with my father-in-law. A group of six quite boisterous youngsters, all male, who I took to be of either Indian or Pakistani descent were on the bus. as female passengers got on and off the bus their was a constant stream of conversation within this group. after a while my father-in-law got up from his seat and went up to them and spoke to them in flawless Urdu telling them that he knew where they lived (Of course he didn't, but they weren't to know that) and that their parents would be ashamed of them if it was reported to them what they had been saying about the female passengers on the bus. He then told them exactly what he thought of them, using the terms that they themselves had used in insulting the passengers on the bus. That is when I learned that from his time in India and Burma with the Army during the Second World War he had learned to speak Urdu, Pashtu, Hindi and Nepali - all fluently. I had never seen such a shocked look on the faces of complete and utter strangers in my life and from that moment onwards they were totally silent. Their view of "western women" was exactly as Jack Straw described.

2: In an Pakistani owned Indian Restaurant on the south coast in the mid-1980s with a friend of mine who had been born in Bombay, worked in India pre-partition in Karachi and then firstly in East and then in West Africa, and was now retired. We were half way through our meal when he asked the waiter serving us to get the owner, who came over. My friend then asked the man to call three of the waiters over. He then proceeded again in perfect Urdu to tell the owner how these three men had been referring to the his female diners during their service. He also told the owner that if he did not reprimand them there and then in the restaurant he would report the matter to the police. The reprimand was given and at least three tables in the restaurant that night got a big surprise when they found out that their meals were strangely "on-the-house". The views of those waiters on "western women" was exactly as Jack Straw described.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:40 PM

Ah the Empire line again ...............

Do you think that the population of the Channel Islands embraced the Germans who took control of those islands in the 40's.

Would you respect them if they had?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:22 PM

"Ireland has opposed outside rule for eight centuries" - Jim Carroll

Really Jim? What fairy story did you get that from? For much of that time the island was peaceful. Those who caused trouble were usually Irish nobles seeking to line their own pockets and settle old scores, and they tended to do that with the help of the Spanish or the French.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

"Jim, you gave a misleading, partial quote from Jack Straw."
I most certainly did not - it is you who is misleading
The article you quote from concerns 50 Muslim men out of 56 convicted, from which you use Straw back your "implant" claim - 50 out of a population of 1.5 million = a paedophilia implant - give us a break!
You carefully didn't link to your quote because it contains a great deal of opposition to Straw "controversial" statement, from the British judiciary involved in trying those 50 men and from British Muslims (making, you a racist, by your own logic, for taking the oinions of less than half-a-dozen people, rather than that of thousands of Muslims)
This is exactly what Straw said.
"'These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

Jim, you gave a misleading, partial quote from Jack Straw.
This is what he actually said,

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men ... who target vulnerable young white girls.
"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."

Straw called on the British Pakistani community to be "more open" about the issue. "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat.
"And because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped." "

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

"I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one," I have always said specifically that it is not."
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

And having writ moves on ...............

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:22 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Don, on 24th January I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM

No Irish historian has ever made such a claim -

Yes they have, and I quoted them doing it.

you took what Christine Kineally said, took it out of context and grossly distorted it.

Lie. I quoted in context and produced the whole article to show it in its original, intended context.
It was another historian who described it as "indoctrination" which is just another word for brainwashing.
I also quoted that in context and produced the whole article to show it in its original, intended context.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

You specified Male British Pakistanis and related it directly to paedophila

No. I claimed only an over-representation in that one specific crime, not paedophilia.
I had no view on why there was an over-representation.

Asked what I believed, I said I believed it was cultural "but only because of the testimony of all those......"

We are all "implanted" to some extent by our culture, though "implanted" was not my choice of word.

I made literally thousands of posts to that thread, but you single out one because you can misrepresent its meaning.
The other thousands make a liar of you Jim.

relatively unknown Muslims have backed you up in your "implant" claim,

They were and are prominent members of that culture, and the most outspoken at the time on that crime and their community.

Now, why are you rehashing a thread from 2011 here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead you and Rag go back six years in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!
You sad, obsessed men.

If you are incapable of arguing on this thread subject, walk away or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"I have not, except in the sense that everyone is a potential anything."
Liar
You specified Male British Pakistanis and related it directly to paedophila
You can deny this till your teeth fall out, but your statement remains carved in stone
"To show that there is a huge over-representation"
No-one ever suggested a "huge" over-representation - that is your take on the statements
You cited Jack Straw, who put it down to "testosterone - fizzing" young people - you put it down to "a cultural implant" and then claimed Straw backed you up.
You lied in order to push your racist agenda
You have consitently claimed relatively unknown Muslims have backed you up in your "implant" claim, suggesting they were authorities, in fact they never suggested si=uch a racist scenario, nor could they and remain in their positions or not be prosecuted.
You have consistently refused to produce examples of their saying anything resembling your disgusting claim
You lied.
You suggeted Irish children had been brainwashed to hate Britain - your mate Ake has just confirmed that is what tyou said.
"Again you take the words of others quoted by Keith!"
No Irish historian has ever made such a claim - you took what Christine Kineally said, took it out of context and grossly distorted it.
At no time have you ever been able to describe how thaat "hatred for Britain" has ever manifested itself in Irish children, just as you have never been able to either qualify or quantify Labour so-called "antisemitism"
You are a racist mess
Go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

Jim,
Keith has made such a claim

I have not, except in the sense that everyone is a potential anything.


Whay else would you bombard this thread with the actions of a minute handful of criiminals who just happen to come from a Muslim background

To show that there is a huge over-representation of one demographic in that specific crime.
That was the only claim I ever made.

Keith not only said exactly what I claim he did about brainwashing Irish children - he did exactly the same as he did about Muslim Implants -

No. Both claims were false, but why are we here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!
You sad, obsessed men.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

" "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles? - "
Keith has made such a claim - you are backing him
Whay else would you bombard this thread with the actions of a minute handful of criiminals who just happen to come from a Muslim background
Your arguments are inseperable from those of Keith - both life members of 'The Fucked-Up Four'
That hard fact are that you are attempting to use the activities of a few hundred criminals to to back up Keith's claim of a cultural "implant" - (his words - nobody else's) in an entire cultural group
You claim on Ireland his historical and racist nonsense
Ireland has opposed outside rule for eight centuries - no outside encouragement needed
" He has quoted others, all members of Britain's Muslim community"#He has done no such thing and refuses to link to any quote he claims to have been made
He made it up himself by distorting what a former home secretary said and taking the opinions of a handful of totally unknown people and twisting them to say the exact opposite
No public person has ever claimed that "all male Pakistanis" are culturally implanted to rape children and have to resist that tendency
Had anybody ever done so, not only would they have been ejected from public life, but they would be facing charges under the incitement to race hatred laws
If Keith refuses to produce an example - why don't you prove me wrong and produce one yourself?
Keith not only said exactly what I claim he did about brainwashing Irish children - he did exactly the same as he did about Muslim Implants - took a historian out-of-context and distorted what she said.
Keith
If it is "racist" to reject what you claim a handful of Muslims said - how racist is it to reject the many thousands of Muslims who totally rejected the idea that being a Muslim does not make you a Paedophile?
The press was full of such rejections
You are a racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM

But why are we here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!

You sad, obsessed men.
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

Jim,
Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women

Untrue.
We are all "implanted" (not my word) to some extent by our culture, and I quoted people who know and understand that culture stating that the culture led to the abuse.

I would not know, but why would anyone, apart from racists, dismiss their view?
Why do you dismiss it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

You specifically asked me for this so here it is:

"Your racism has gone viral on the Nuclear Subs thread where you are attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles" - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Where in the thread mentioned am I - "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles? - What I have done is detail the convictions of eleven gangs, in eleven different cities in the UK where those gangs consisted predominantly of members who came from British-Pakistani backgrounds. Those are hard facts Carroll - I am merely pointing them out to you, I am not trying to prove anything to you, or anybody else. So for you to state that I am "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles is classic Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" and a downright lie.

"You have in the past described the Irish as a moronic race who have only opposed British rule because they were persuaded to do so by the French." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Give me the post of mine where I said that. I believe that in refuting the myth that ancient Ireland was some sort of idyllic, united country completely at peace with itself prior to the arrival of the Normans I stated that it was far from it and that the so-called leaders of rebellions in Ireland from the 12th century right up until 1798 fought solely for their own advancement with the aid and at the instigation of a foreign power who just happened to be at war with England/Great Britain at the time. That statement happens to be factually correct and is borne out by recorded history in Ireland, Britain, France and Spain.

"Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women - you have supported him in that claim - his still persists in that sick claim." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Keith A has stated no such thing - He has quoted others, all members of Britain's Muslim community, who have made those suggestions - Only you and your pals deliberately chose to apply their suggestion and attribute it quite wrongly to Keith A. In addition to the three persons Keith A quoted, three of the investigations into the horrendous sex crimes perpetrated against vulnerable young girls in the eleven instances detailed voiced concerns regarding the "cultural" backgrounds of the offenders and how reluctance by the authorities due to "political correctness" allowed those gangs to operate so freely for so long. Now those people made those remarks and drew those conclusions, not Keith A and not myself. Keith A subsequently stated that given the evidence put forward by those people he believed that there was something in it. In other words he was giving an honest opinion of how he saw things based on evidence. Instead of challenging that evidence you simply chose to attack Keith A in a most deplorable fashion.

"He has also suggested that all Irish children have been brainwashed to hate Britain, broviding no description of how that "hatred" manifests itself." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

No he didn't. Again you take the words of others quoted by Keith A and then attribute them to Keith. Irish historians have claimed and proven that from 1922 onwards until the Second World War the teaching of History in Ireland was slanted and biased towards a blame culture that was aimed at blaming everything that was wrong in Ireland on the English/British and that was drummed into the children attending schools in the Republic of Ireland. To substantiate this you were given the direct quotes and references from the historians, you were directed to YouTube Documentaries of the 1950s IRA border campaign where "volunteers" openly admitted that the reason they fought was due to the indoctrination they had received at school as children - you ignored the lot, never bothered watching anything, never even acknowledged the existence of that material.

If you wish to cover any of the above to a greater degree Carroll - open separate specific threads that discuss those points and those points only. It might, just might put an end to the stream of "Made-Up-Shit" once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:23 AM

"Apart from it being another example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" what is the manifestation of my so-called "racism"?
Your racism has gone viral on the Nuclear Subs thread where you are attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles
You have in the past described the Irish as a moronic race who have only opposed British rule because they were persuaded to do so by the French.
Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women - you have supported him in that claim - his still persists in that sick claim.
He has also suggested that all Irish children have been brainwashed to hate Britain, broviding no description of how that "hatred" manifests itself.
Racism and cultural intolerance in both of you appears to ooze from your every pore.
Now, tell me - what "shit" have I "made up" - is this not a description of your extremist behaviour?
By the way - no police report or official survey has ever at any time has ever linked the Islamic religion with sexual deviation of any kind in Britain.
That is a figment of Keith's hate-filled invention which you are defending with your "facts".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:27 PM

The logic of 'little gang' according to Keith, or was it Teribus, I forget, is that we all act 'in accord'. The same is true for Keith, Teribus, Akenaton and Bobad. It is also true that all those mentioned are included in the term coined by Joe are also 'the usual suspects' although that seems to have escaped the notice of some.

Yes, i did meet Raggy last Saturday and we did mention mudcat although his estimate of 1 minute is quite high. If I remember rightly is was,

"*** really is a complete idiot isn't he?"
"Yes"
"How does he think he can get away with it?"
"I don't know but he isn't worth even talking about"

Maybe 15 seconds.

I have never met Steve or Jim but if I did I would be proud to shake their hands. I have PMd at least 2 of the others and had my offer of friendship thrown back in my face.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:28 PM

Akenaton I am disappointed with your post.

I was using our, albeit brief, private communication to illustrate the idiocy of presuming there was a "little gang" operating of which I was deemed to be a member.

You, I hope, will realise no such "little gang" does or ever has existed.

If other posters on here agree with something I have posted it is purely down to the fact that, on that particular subject, they agree with my sentiments.

We do not meet on a Friday night down at the pub to discuss what each of us may, or may not post.

To suggest otherwise is paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:36 PM

Apart from it being another example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" what is the manifestation of my so-called "racism"?

So far I have only faithfully transcribed official reports - nothing actually from me at all, just boring old facts uncovered during police investigations that resulted in successful convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:12 PM

While I'm on the subject Jim you are a real bully, you do not even attempt to make points any longer, each successive post has become a mad rant....I don't know why your labelling of members in the most disgusting of ways is allowed, it is certainly not to make a point or further the discussion, more of a bully-boy tactic in an attempt to intimidate.

Fortunately those who read you can easily discern what manner of a "man" you are, as far as I can see you have no redeeming features whatsoever. Dave and Steve are perhaps worse if that is possible, as they are manipulators releasing their spite through the strings of their puppets. They do not even believe the nonsense they promote, it has become a weird unhealthy game.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:45 PM

I have a rule regarding personal messages,
No matter how abusive they may be, I never divulge the content and try never to mention them on open forum......But since Raggytash has brought these messages into the thread I think it is in order that I clarify that they had absolutely nothing to do with the forum or the behaviour of "the thread abusing gang" (you know who you are)or any other member.
We exchanged two PM's on a matter concerning an area of Ireland quite civilly.
I want to go on record as saying that the abuse of Keith is deplorable
If there is any blame to apportion it should be to Jim, Dave, and Steve.....and Raggytash, I am disappointed that our conversation was used in such a way, I had thought better of you.

Please stop this childishness It does your cause no good at all and makes you look crass and stupid.
You say Teribus is aggressive, but he is simply responding to your abysmal behaviour, both he and Keith are decent people, kind and helpful...your agenda rules you minds you hate people you have never met over a political ideology.....Time to grow up

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM

By the way
All bullies are insecure - that's why you try to shout people down
I used to believe it was an inferiority complex, but now I think is that bullies are inferior
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

"Why is that? "
Because there is no room for your racist shite
We have enough problems with it from Keith
"Tirades of abuse".
There's a big difference between incitement to race hatred and slagging each other off
Guess which one gets petrol poured through letterboxes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM

Oh dear Jim, you've asked for the thread to be closed. Why is that? Because you have nothing to contribute on topic or off it?

As for your last couple of posts, you certainly cannot complain about "Tirades of abuse".

Still no clue about this supposed "insecurity" of mine then Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:14 PM

Not that I recall, he may have done but as I have no idea where Friels or Jim are located it would be meaningless.

You do seem to be clutching at straws a great deal lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:03 PM

I've just asked the Nuclear Subs thread to be closed, but it's worth mentioning in relation to "gangs" - it only takes Keith to go into one of his Islamophobic rants about "implants" and it has set Teribus goose-stepping on the same theme as if somebody flicked a switch
Hope you all put on your best Black shirt!"
You are a sick joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

But Raggy didn't Jim invite you down to Friel's for a pint not so long ago? Don't tell me you stood him up!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

"you lot follow each other through threads like a flock of sheep."
Mindless prick - get a life
"why a few of you have latched onto as a mantra-like phrase recently"
you nean like "made up shit" has
You stupid, stupid little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:20 PM

Professor, I have a property in England. Are you and I likely to meet up.

Logic is not your strong point is it.

If anything I HAVE invited you out. I think I said I would buy you a meal and a few pints. I have not extended that invitation to Jim.

No offence Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:18 PM

Just look at the posting pattern folks - you lot follow each other through threads like a flock of sheep.

Oh I asked Carroll about this "insecurity" thing, that coincidentally you could explain how and why a few of you have latched onto as a mantra-like phrase recently - needless to say, Carroll didn't respond - so let me ask you the same question, what is it I am supposed to be "insecure" about? You clowns? Hardly, I've been running circles round the lot of you for years.