BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:06 PM

I just wonder what is the purpose of these childish diversions, is it an attempt to get the BS section closed now that at last serious subjects are being discussed at length?

I have said it before, but it is well worth repeating.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Serious subjects being discussed at last? Where? When?

Oh , and BTW

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:39 PM

So it's the last example then?   I don't engage with you Steve you appear to aim your spite at Mr T, Keith, Bobad and Iains so what you want is a discussion forum where everyone is of the same opinion on matters social and political, "thus enhancing the possibility that the forum below the line will be a more pleasant and populous place that will live forever."

Say goodnight Stevieboy!! and dream on!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:18 PM

"I did not have to fit your words to anything."

Ahah, Keith, but can you fit yourself into Dave's Hawaiian shirts? Now there's a challenge!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:15 PM

Our diversions are childlike, not childish. We approach the glories of the natural world with wide-eyed wonder, God-free. The very epitome of what it is to be childlike. And we indulge in these diversions in the hope that they will severely piss people like you off, so that you may end up posting less, thus enhancing the possibility that the forum below the line will be a more pleasant and populous place that will live forever. If you do end up posting less, or, indeed, buggering off entirely, that will be your choice, no attack on free speech intended, etc. We live in hope. And there's nothing you can do to stop us. Free speech, innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 02:09 PM

I just wonder what is the purpose of these childish diversions, is it an attempt to get the BS section closed now that at last serious subjects are being discussed at length?

Is it simply spite that the gang's intellectual inadequacies are being exposed and they just can't take a beating like adults?

Is it the fact that their mythical ideology has been rumbled all over the developed West and the years they invested in promoting the idiocy of "liberalism" have turned out to be lives wasted?

Is it just that they have nowhere left to go and have decided to destroy debate as one final spiteful performance?

Any one of the above would be sad, but all combined would mean complete mental desolation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:36 PM

Dave,
Try as you may to fit my words into your ideology, Keith, I know what was meant,

I did not have to fit your words to anything.
Whatever you now claim you meant, the actual meaning was quite explicit in your post as I have just demonstrated.

If you meant something different you should have said something different.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:36 PM

I love Hawaiian shirts! Had a great collection, added to on a visit to the States some years back but, alas, they have all gone bar 2. Must try to build it up again. They were easy to come by when skateboarding gear was popular. Not sure how the two fitted together, but they did.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:31 PM

£9.99 though, Dave? Will it wash OK? Keep me posted! I go for Hawaiian shirts all the time these days. They suit my sunny personality. Can't wait for the new season's offerings at Asda George. Nowt over twelve quid though. Bought a good few at Pilsworth Asda last spring.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

Still 25% off six bottles at M&S. Got six bottles of the Negroamaro last Wednesday, eight quid each less 25% and on top of that I had a five quid off voucher for spending over £35. So six cracking good bottles of red for a tad over a fiver apiece. It will wash down the orecchiette con cime di rape I'm making tonight. Not all six at once of course!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:24 PM

Oh - BTW, Steve, forgot to tell you I am thinking of ordering a new T-Shirt

I wish I was a unicorn.

Thought you would appreciate it :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:19 PM

it really doesn't matter that they natter on about their inanities

Absolutely spot on for a change poobad. Trouble is I suspect you were aiming it in the wrong direction. Food, flowers and the beauty of the naturual world are what matter. Politics are indeed inane.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:56 AM

You know what Teribus, it really doesn't matter that they natter on about their inanities, it has about as much value as their parroting of the tired old canon of a long failed ideology and besides someone may benefit from a supermarket deal they were unaware of.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:54 AM

Try as you may to fit my words into your ideology, Keith, I know what was meant, Steve knows what was meant and lots of other people know what was meant. Only your agenda driven imagination is saying anything else. If you feel that my use of the language is shit as well as my morals you only have to say so. :-)

I have always said that the figures show an over representation. I have also always said that there are many plausible reasons for this and I do not know what the right one is. Unlike you, who have always insisted that it must be culture based because that is what some politicians told you.

You need to lighten up Teribus. The difference when you were trying to be witty was amazing. Sad that you failed but keep practicing and you may come across as human eventually:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

Wonder what birds, plants, mopeds, recipes or supermarket special deals we'll hear about now?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:46 AM

Jim,
You have attacked Muslims both over their ethnicity and because of their religion - and you have denied doing it while you are continuing to do it.

Another disgusting Jim lie.
Will you produce a quote?
Of course not, because it is just another disgusting Jim lie.

In the thread are the original quotes of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Safiq and Alibhai Brown all saying it is cultural.
There have been other quotes since.

I have repeated them often enough. Just search the thread for those names if you want to read them again.

They say the child rapes in question were down to culture, and culture is implanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:38 AM

Steve,
So here we are again, another pointless resurrection enabling Keith to prattle on interminably for a little while longer.

No Steve.
It is always Jim who dredges up this shit, and spreads it across the threads.
He has been doing it for SIX YEARS!
I always try to dissuade him.

I never prattle on about the odious subject, but I do rebut prattling Jim's false accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:32 AM

Oh, FFS, here we go again. Telling me what I mean

No. Telling you what you said.
You may wish now that you had not, but your meaning there was clear.

Let us examine the whole post.

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:59 PM
I think the point is that British Pakistanis, and I only use the term to be consistent with the thread, are over-represented in these cases. I have no doubt as to the veracity of Keiths figures. Lox has even agreed that it is an over-representation.

There you have accepted the over representation based on the figures.

You then quote someone else's post,
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

"BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases.

They are not overrepresented in sex crimes in general.

Having dealt with that you move on to the "motive" behind the over representation,

"The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

Ahmed and Straw proposed a cultural explanation, and as you said not a "racial motive."
You clearly endorse their view.

Your final sentence, which again makes clear that you are discussion the explanation for the over representation, and not just the over representation itself,

I did, incidentaly, put up what I felt were reasonable reasons for such an over-representation earlier but only Keith chose to respond. And then to only agree that he, like myself, did not have an answer!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:34 AM

Jim, culture is implanted and I quoted them and others saying that the explanation was cultural.
Nobody has ever said such a disgusting thing - "implanted to rape children"
You lide and you you continue to lie - not only have you never produced a quote, you refuse to produce one now when it is well within your capabilities to do so
You visited within the last few days - one quick cut-'- paste would have settled it - nothing!!!
You are not only dishonest but you are stupidly so in continuing with your lies despite having proved yourself wrong over and over again
Have you no respect for yourself??
As for "I said it before anyone else did - utterly and completely mindless beyond imagination
You have attacked Muslims both over their ethnicity and because of their religion - and you have denied doing it while you are continuing to do it.
I've got far more important things to do than converse with someone who appears to wish to humiliate himself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:27 AM

Good point, Steve :-) I suspect that pattern of posting is pretty consistent too. I shall be kind though and put it down to Keith's absences due to other commitments.

I know your bearded, Guardian reading sandaled ways, Shaw...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:49 AM

Let me guess. Keith saw this bastard-child thread of his dropping off the bottom. Eighteen hours without a post! He couldn't let that happen. So here we are again, another pointless resurrection enabling Keith to prattle on interminably for a little while longer. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:18 AM

In that post you were referring to the explanation, and said that Lord Ahmed Jack Straw were credible on that.
They gave a cultural explanation.

Oh, FFS, here we go again. Telling me what I mean - How is that you know what people mean better than they do themselves? Yes, it is a credible explanation AMONGST MANY OTHERS. My whole point was that while it may be credible, it is not necessarily the right one. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:08 AM

Steve,
As indeed do you prattling on interminably about this

I do not.
I just defend myself from false accusations.
I will stop rebutting the accusations the very instant Jim stops making them.

It is always prattling Jim who dredges this up, and prattling Jim who then spreads it to concurrent threads.
This time you, Dave and Rag chose to join in so again do not blame me for any of this.

Why don't you have a quiet word with your friend?
Ask him to stop "prattling on interminably about this."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:01 AM

Dave, you had already accepted the over-representation based on the statistics. Nothing to do with Straw or Ahmed.

In that post you were referring to the explanation, and said that Lord Ahmed Jack Straw were credible on that.
They gave a cultural explanation.

Jim, culture is implanted and I quoted them and others saying that the explanation was cultural.
Why would I not believe them, as Dave clearly did?
Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:53 AM

Knock it off, Keith. I'll tell you if and when I agree with you. My silence means bugger all. As indeed do you prattling on interminably about this and trying to goad people all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:43 AM

Thank you Keith. Saved me looking anything up. You say I posted

The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

This perfectly underlines what I just said. While there appears to be an over-rperesentation we will always disagree about the reasons. You go for the cultural implant one while I continue to quest for all possible reasons.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:39 AM

"I put it up to pre-empt anyone else doing it."
You are a lying prick Keith
Who,    of those debating, would
You were on your own and most of those opposing you were referring to you as a racist
our references to scriptures that are largely disregarded by British Muslims only underlines you racism
And more lies
Post or link one single statement by either Ahmed or Straw that suggested that All Male Pakistani's were "culturally implanted" to rape children and the only reason they didn't was that they resisted the implant
That is exactly what you said - nothing made up by me - that is what you told don yo believed "Don - I now do believe....."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:16 AM

Jim another example from 2006!!

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 22 May 06 - 04:16 AM

Just 40 days in the wilderness Dianavan, and that hundreds of years before Mohammed, peace be upon him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:44 AM

The primulas in my garden have been flowering all winter and last November the Rhododendrons were flowering on the Connemara !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:43 AM

Jim,
"Whenever I referred to the Prophet I added "peace and blessings be upon him" out of respect for their faith."
You liar Keith

I can prove it Jim.
I posted this before the post you refer to.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 01:21 PM
Correct greg, but the difference is in how non believers are tolerated.
It is much more prevalent among Muslims to believe they have a duty to punish a non believer who by stating his belief blasphemes against Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon Him), or a Muslim who converts, or just a non believer.

If you didn't mean it as a smear - why put up a marriage that took place a thousand years ago?

I put it up to pre-empt anyone else doing it.
There were Islamophobes posting who might well have muddied the waters with that false argument.

That is also why I had to keep restating my view that religion was not an issue in the offending.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

Dave, you posted this ,
The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

Ahmed and Straw were two of those I quoted as claiming a cultural explanation.

Steve,

I very likely didn't challenge it because I was as bored with your hectoring then as I am with your hectoring now.

No Steve. You were posting away quite happily but never challenged the over-representation or the cultural explanation for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 06:00 AM

I very likely didn't challenge it because I was as bored with your hectoring then as I am with your hectoring now. This forum is voluntary. Don't assume that silence means agreement with you. That's another one of your little ploys. Well some of us are not quite as thick and unobservant as you seem to think. And it's another reason why I'd rather talk about flowers and things. Indeed, it's a lovely spring day this end. Mrs Steve and I may or may not get the MX5 soft top down and head off to RHS Rosemoor this affy. I will, if course, keep you posted!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:55 AM

"Whenever I referred to the Prophet I added "peace and blessings be upon him" out of respect for their faith."
You liar Keith
You set out in the previous sentence to show that Islam = pedophilia, which is what you spent the entire thread in doing - go and look
If you didn't mean it as a smear - why put up a marriage that took place a thousand years ago?
It had no reason to be in an argument about Muslim criminals guilty of sexual crimes other than to back up your disgusting claims of a "cultural implant that has to be resisted in order to stop Muslims raping under-age girls"
We really have been here before Keith
You were foremost in those quoting the Quran, trying to prove in inbuilt evil of the religion - I responded with quotes from 'The Evil Bible' showing the stupidity of taking these fairy stories literally (I seem to remember you objected strongly to the fact that Bible quotations used the term "Israel" traditionally - you appeared to think I was taking a pop at your favourite terrorist state.
Once again, yo are lying - you have never once quoted anybody supporting your "cultural implant" theory - not ever
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:50 AM

Dave did

I accepted that there was an over-representation. I questioned the reasons for that. Please try to get these things right, Keith, and do not try to give the impression that I agree with your cultural implant theory.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM

Jim,
Whenever I referred to the Prophet I added "peace and blessings be upon him" out of respect for their faith.

Unlike you I never disrespect any faith or its followers.

Throughout that thread I stated that religion played no part in that crime.
You just highlighted in red me saying, "but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Culture not religion!

I had no knowledge of it but I quoted several prominent left wing people who did and who had all been quoted in all the media attributing the offending to that culture.
No alternative theory had been put forward.
As I said at the time, that was the only reason I believed it. Why didn't you Jim?
Dave did, and Steve never challenged it at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM

I'm not surprised, Jim. I've always had you down as her type, though she could give you a year or two!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:00 PM

"Gotta tell me mum that one, Jim."
She told me it Steve!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 01:25 PM

The only full registration I can remember was my first. Lambretta GT200 - BBA46B. When I first set of on it I rode it into a wall! Low speed I am glad to say. Never fell off it again after that :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 12:37 PM

Gotta tell me mum that one, Jim.

My moped's reg was NNF41H. Wasn't overly keen on the NF bit of that!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:43 AM

This is your what you were directly responding to Keith
Lox
"They do not represent Islamic attitudes to women."
"So, why not Irish gangs?
Chinese?
The muslim communty does not encourage its girls to have relationships.
Marriages are usually arranged, and usually with partners in Pakistan.
Their unmarried young men must abstain or find sex outside their own community, but not have lasting relationships.
Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."
You were replying to a point about the sexual abuse of children and you chose to link it to Muslim culture and threw in a touch of religion "peace be upon you" for good measure

"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Your argument, a massively contradictory as it was, was aimed totally at Muslim culture – then you specified a thousand year old marriage to back up your claims against a 21st century community
The spiteful 'mock-Muslim' manner in which you framed your accusation "(peace and blessings be upon him) " only underlined your contempt for Muslims
End of story
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:21 AM

"My Honda"
Do you know the story of the Japanese man who told his doctor that he suffered from flatulence.
The doctor replied that this may be embarrassing but it was not a major problem - many people do.
"Ah - this is different" -
He bent over and farted, and out came a loud "Honda"
The doctor examined him closely and finally said, "You have an abscess".
"What difference does that make", the man asked?
"Well", replied the doctor, "in Britain, we have an old saying - abscess makes the fart go Honda"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:01 AM

My Honda 50 was registration No ELG81B then moved on to bigger and faster machines.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 10:59 AM

Jim,,
Your quoting of the marriage of Mohammed a thousand years ago in an argument about Muslim criminals was a deliberate attempt to link those crimes with the Muslim religion  

No it was not. You made it look like that by editing out everything I said before and after.

I said, "It is nothing to do with Islam. " and "Child marriage was accepted here until recently."

You can only make a case by lying and by careful editing of what I really said.

You didn't link your Labour quote which missed the point of the article

??
What did I not link to that I should please?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 10:24 AM

I think Teribus wants to give us a hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 10:21 AM

👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 09:18 AM

The Insitute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has blown the Tories' cover. I'm rubbish at doing links but have a google at this: 'IFS: Growth in UK living standards worst in 60 years" Hands up all those who think Brexit will help! And there was a Tory on the wireless at dinner time STILL blaming the last Labour government! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 09:11 AM

Teribus can have my brother's old moped if he can find it. There are an awful lot of hedgerows in Cheshire, mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 09:00 AM

"Hammond's budget yesterday was a bit boring"
Not to the Lewis's employees who have had their bonuses cut to make up for the Brexit uncertainty, or the rise in takes for the self-employed despite promises on not intending to do so
Brexit is proving a real fuck-up in every sense and it is the less well off who is taking the flak
How "boring" can you get

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/philip-hammonds-spring-budget-what-he-said-and-what-he-really-meant-a7618621.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:51 AM

I think it may be more useful getting on my bike and buying a club...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:36 AM

I wonder ........... should we club together and buy him a bike?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:28 AM

Well done, Teribus. You are getting into the swing of things at long last. Never let it be said that you can't teach and old sea dog new tricks.

:D tG