BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:34 AM

Blimey. Remind me to remind Keith of this jolly little diversion next time he tries to force US to stick to the thread topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Still getting the wrong end of the stick, Keith, and playing the racist card to obfuscate the issue. Purposely I suspect and on your sabbath too. The point I am making is that there are two sides to the story. The one that you and I do not see because it does not affect us and the one that travelers do see all the time because it affects them directly.

I do not claim no single sign exists, so I can not call anyone a liar

Errr, so, what about "if such signs exist at all" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar". Porkies as well as misrepresentation. You will never get though them pearly gates at this rate. Off to church with you and I hope they do confessions!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:47 AM

Found mushrooms when I mowed the lawn yesterday, Steve. I don't know enough about them to try eating them but they looked OK. The more I think about the more I am determined to get rid of the damned leylandii and replace when with a trellis and climbers of some sort. Trouble is, there is a whole eco-system of spadgers in there. I think they nest more in next doors privets but they use the leylandii as an extension for guests :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:06 AM

WAnd still you refuse to respond to the articles and statements put up Keith
You have no case until you do
Are they lies?
Have I made them up
Why won't you respond to them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 09:21 AM

I do consume a number of species of wild fungi, when I'm cast-iron certain of their identity. The only one of any size I can think of at this time of year would be St George's Mushroom, but it's probably a few weeks' too early for that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 10:06 AM

WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.

And there you have the reason why this forum is in the state it currently is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:02 AM

Smallish brown capped mushrooms with thin stems. The tops look a little like chestnut mushrooms but they are too small. Quite a lot of them and in the relative open but sometimes shaded area of the lawn. They don't look anything like the St Georges one.

Cheers

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:30 AM

You guys have Morels over there in Blighty? They're the only ones I dare mess with as its impossible to mistake' em for anything unfortunate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:35 AM

Yet another glorious day out on the Connemara, people sitting in the sunshine in the market square enjoying the warmth and a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:35 AM

Could be fairy ring mushroom if it's on your lawn. If it's Marasmius oreades, it's delicious. Cut the stalks off. If it isn't, you may die.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:45 PM

Dave,
you and I do not see because it does not affect us

Nonsense! Such a sign would be so outrageously unacceptable and provocative that I would certainly notice it and do something about it, and I do not believe that you or Rag would be any different.

My statements that you quoted, "if such signs exist at all" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" are not claims that no signs exist, which I do not claim and never have.

I do claim that the signs are not "common throughout Britain" because if they were it would not be just Jim who has ever seen one!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:49 PM

Blimey. Remind me to remind Keith of this jolly little diversion next time he tries to force US to stick to the thread topic.

Jim raised the issue by lying that I had defended the signs.
If he would stop making false accusations against me, I would immediately stop rebutting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:53 PM

I can accept that it may not say that they do not exist. How are you going to explain away the apparent contradiction between " I can not call anyone a liar" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" then?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:01 PM

Right, but just never ask me to stick to the thread topic ever again, Keith. Got my grass cut today. Good drying east wind made it possible. Damned hard work though. I've caught the sun. How daft is that! Lasagne with tomato, rocket and red pepper salad tonight, olive oil and balsamic dressing. Garlic bread. Prosecco and a bottle of aglianico from Vesuvius. As they say oop north, I could quite happily be miserable living like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:02 AM

Wonder why this has not been as widely reported in the popular press as when Labour lose a seat?

Historic win for Britain's Labour in City of London elections


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:21 AM

Dave,
apparent contradiction between " I can not call anyone a liar" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" then?

No contradiction intended. I do not accuse Jim of lying about this, he is just wrong, but he does tell lies.

Anyone could write such a notice anytime so I would not claim none exist, but that could well be the case.
They are illegal so it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble.

I do claim, with great confidence, that they are not "common throughout Britain" or one of us living here would have seen one.
We still haven't Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM

Re local elections in City.
Your link was to Reuters, perhaps because so few papers and no broadcasters covered it.
Just the Indy (on line only) and the Financial Times.
Where was the Mirror and Guardian?

Perhaps this from the Indy adds some perspective to the "historic win."

"The Council has historically been dominated by independent councillors as the main political parties have tended not to field candidates in City elections.
However, Labour routinely contests some wards and in today's election the party increased its representation from one to five.
The remaining 95 seats were taken by independents or candidates with no party description.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-city-of-london-election-vote-independence-jeremy-corbyn-a7649221.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:58 AM

"but he does tell lies."
prove it Keith
I have given you your examples Kewith - now you give me mine
"Jim raised the issue by lying that I had defended the signs."
You are defending the signs by dismissing them as being as rare as Malarial mosquitos and doubting their aexistence "if they exist at all".
You have been given masses of information on them which you simply refuse to respond to or acknowledge
In doing this you are defending them dishonestly
Respond to the evidence Keith or accept you have been exposed as a liar and a bigot
PRODUCE THE LIES YOU SAY I HAVE TOLD OR ADD THIS ACCUSATION TO YOUR OWN LONG LIST OF LIES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:15 AM

perhaps because so few papers and no broadcasters covered it.

Did I not pose the question as to why it had not been covered? We really do speak a different language.

An increase from 1 to 5 seats is massive increase in anyone's books.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:29 AM

Jim,
You are defending the signs by dismissing them as being as rare

No. I am stating a fact that they are not common, and I am not alone in that. I do not defend them and never have or would.

I did not compare their rarity to malarial mosquitos, I made the point that recognising something is rare does not constitute defending them.

Now, if you were not lying again, quote me actually defending those signs.
Good luck with that liar.

Dave, yes you did make the point about coverage.
The fact that even Left Wing papers and broadcasters ignored it suggests they do not think the "massive increase" from 1% to 5% so significant, or "historic."

They were not up against the other parties for a start, so it is a very unusual kind of election.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

"it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble."
From the evidence you have chosen to dishonestly ignore Keith]
"It is in the interests of the police and society that they pursue these cases of discrimination, otherwise Travellers will rightly feel aggrieved and disconnected.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM

Nonsense. An increase from 1 to 5 is 5 times as many by anyone's reckoning. . I don't think that has happened elsewhere.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:42 AM

I am just the messenger Dave.
It is the Guardian, Mirror and BBC who have dismissed it as not newsworthy.
Well, all the media except the Indy and FT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:47 AM

When I said "Guardian" I was of course including the Observer too Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

So, in answer to the question I posed at the start of this part of the discussion - Wonder why this has not been as widely reported in the popular press as when Labour lose a seat? - Your answer is that the media did not think it was newsworthy? Yet it is newsworthy when Labour lose a seat. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? Does it not underline the point that the media are only interested in discrediting the Labour party and/or Corbyn? As you seem to be?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:59 AM

"When I said 'Guardian' I was of course including the Observer too Steve."


💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:25 AM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:41 AM

I think that Reuters misjudged the significance of the City election, and the UK media got it right.
I watched Corbyn on Peston yesterday, and they did not think it worth mentioning either.
The real local elections are next month. How do you think Labour will do Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:51 AM

Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."
Jim Carroll

Bullshit if ever I heard it, why the police in Islington would refer and report on the matter to some delusional "bampot" parked out on the West coast of Ireland I haven't the foggiest notion - do the Met run everything related to alleged discrimination cases past you do they Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM

Yet another glorious day here on the Connemara, the last two days have seen a profusion of yellow primroses blossom, they are ubiquitous along the hedgerows and verges, such cheerful blooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:48 AM

I honestly fear for Jim's sanity. Maybe time to ease up a wee bit Mr T?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

There is a very obvious reason for the Islington police to contact Jim regarding this and that is that he is the person to have made the initial compliant. The complainant is told the result of the CPS deliberations.
Given his interaction with the travelling community it would seem a logical assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 12:59 PM

We had 18⁰︎C here today. Glorious. Ate too many chips sitting outside Rosie's Kitchen in Bude at lunchtime so we went for a long walk down to Bude canal then back along the cliff path. We heard two skylarks - first this year! Celandines and primroses in huge drifts, blackthorn in full bloom, chiffchaffs and robins singing their fierce courtship rants (aka beautiful birdsong), black sedge flowering along the canal, all senses engaged, all things universal...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:14 PM

How do you think Labour will do Dave?

Why ask me? Do I look like a pollster?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:23 PM

I can top that Steve, we went for a drive round the Aughrus Peninsula (very beautiful area) the temperture did not drop below 19 degrees, far warmer in sheltered spots. The last I fear for a few days though.

Spring in springing out all over the place, lambs, foals and calfs in many fields ............. it's good to be alive.

A stunning guitarist last evening, and I mean really, really stunning. With any luck, if I can stand another night out, there will be even more music tonight !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:27 PM

Was dull most of the day here but the sun has come out again now. Just found out we are having the grandsons some of next week so hope to spend some time with them around the countryside. 'Adventures' they call them and who am I to contradict :-) Took the eldest up to Lund's tower and Cowling pinnacle last Easter so it's the youngest's turn this time. He has his priorities right and has already picked what he wants on his sandwiches :-) If he manages that OK I may take them both round Ingleton Waterfalls over the weekend. Should be a lot more flora around than when I last went in February!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:57 PM

"Bullshit if ever I heard it"
You've been given the link - from a clergyman
Have you people nothing to offer yourselves other than denials and the support of out tame homophobic racist?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 02:11 PM

THEER YOU GO YOU BUNCH OF MORONS - COMPLETE WITH PHOTO
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 02:44 PM

Anything so say about my sanity Ake?
No?
Thought not, you spineless little creep
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:32 PM

Well, got 4 answers right on university challenge tonight. White, the Peak district, the Yorkshire Dales and I have forgot the other! Anyone remember a contest back in the 70's I think, where Salford disgraced themselves good and proper. Or did I imagine it? It was the 70's after all :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:40 PM

"Or did I imagine it?"
You did not - that was a defining moment fr the North
I got nine tonight - I always astound Pat with my interplanetary and biblical knowledge - all down to my wasted youth reading Asimov and watching Life of Brian
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:42 PM

Now watching Mary Berry and getting hungry looking at the food! She has just made a lasagne type dish with aubergines but I missed what it was called. Looked delicious:-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:57 PM

Did Mary just say 'wok could be easier' in reference to a stir fry?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:10 PM

What a bizarre coincidence. Night in watching TV and on the tablet if you hadn't gathered. Flicked over to "Foyle's War" and the background is Jewish student talking about the Palestinian issue and being attacked by fascists! Set just after WW2. Churchill just described as a "Jew lover". Serendipity?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:29 PM

Got three of those recipes printed out. Mrs Steve is a genius with the wireless printer. Definitely got more than nine, Jim, including all three bonus ones on works of art. Tough do tonight, though. Semi-finals can't be made too easy!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:58 PM

I am humbled. Or is it humbugged?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:20 PM

Thirty years ago to this day (the 27th (I may be a few minutes late!), we had been in our current house in Cornwall for six weeks. That day, we had the most ferocious wind we'd ever experienced. It stripped dozens of slates from our roof, wrecked the guttering at the front of the house and demolished our 18'x12' greenhouse. Having been used to town life all our lives, we were too scared to go outside that day. Roof slates were flying everywhere! A bloke who was a teacher at my new school, who I hardly knew, spent a whole day helping me to pick up broken glass from the greenhouse. Some of it was fifty feet away. He's a lifelong friend now, his eldest son being the same age as my son, then in the same class at the local primary school. I still find bits of glass in my garden from that event.

We had fixed up the buildings insurance but hadn't even paid the first premium, but they still paid up! We had more wind damage in the October 1987 storm, the Burns Day Storm in 1990 and in another big blow two weeks after the Burns Day Storm. Since then, some entertaining storms and a few slates blown off, but nothing like in them good ol' days!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:59 PM

This from faithful "little Sir Echo":
Raggytash - 27 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

"There is a very obvious reason for the Islington police to contact Jim regarding this and that is that he is the person to have made the initial compliant. The complainant is told the result of the CPS deliberations.
Given his interaction with the travelling community it would seem a logical assumption."

Then all becomes clear when Jim produces the link from the "Left Foot Forward" website FFS!!

"Yesterday [28th February, 2012], I [Conn Mac Gabhann] received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."

So Raggy, Jim had absolutely S.F.A. to do with this. His contention that today in the UK Anti-Traveller Signs are common has to be backed up by a single instance from Five effin' years ago. By the way with your posting record I would suggest you refrain from using the word logical about anything you assume.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:05 PM

Go to bed, Bill. The nurse will start fretting very soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:10 PM

Jim Carroll - 27 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

"it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble." - Keith A presumably.

From the evidence you have chosen to dishonestly ignore Keith]
"It is in the interests of the police and society that they pursue these cases of discrimination, otherwise Travellers will rightly feel aggrieved and disconnected.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."
Jim Carroll

What link Carroll??? There is no reference to date 29th February 2012, no reference to the "Left Foot Forward" website and no reference to Conn Mac Gabhann. Your post reads as though the incident happened recently (It didn't), and that you had received a call on the 26th March, 2017 from Islington Police Station (You didn't) - If that isn't total misrepresentation Carroll I do not know what is. Having said that though Jim it is up to par with your usual line in total bollocks (To use the term as defined by Steve Shaw).