BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:44 PM

http://muppets.disney.com/

Stevie chunder and gnome please identify yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:24 PM

Oh good. A little friend for Keithy to play with. Glad to see he is not on his own after all. Mind you, with friends like Inanes and ake, who needs enemies.

Glad to see that Keith is rattled enough to tell me to fuck off as well. I am sure he once told us that abuse was a sure sign of losing the argument. Or was it that he never indulges in abuse? I really can't remember as he changes his story so often.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:02 PM

Is this the usual gang practising for their next joint offering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKURJBXq-sA

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:59 PM

You're a waste of space. And unfunny to boot. Don't let us stop you though.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:54 PM

and a little thread drift so the gang do not feel isolated:


http://pureaircontrols.com/human-health-dangers-bird-droppings-associated-building-hvac-systems/

A tad more informative than babbling on about bits of rock and weeds doncha think!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:42 PM

I see the usual gang resort to their usual trick. If they do not like the messenger, they do not have to believe the message.
Tell me boys do you have a problem accepting that if a seagull or a crow shits on your head then the outcome is the same:- a head covered in shit. Not really that difficult to understand now is it. Does it matter if the substantiated facts are printed in the sun, the times, or reported by theBBC, Al Jazeera, or RT.

You really do have simple little minds, do you not?

and another little titbit for you:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebel-leader-abdul-hakim-belhaj-supreme-court-wins-right-sue-jack-straw-tor

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 03:09 PM

Not a chance
Keith hasn't won anything yet and Iains...... well.... I mean to say!
You do realise we're feeding these trolls, don't you?
Oxygen of publicity (as Old Iron Knickers used to say) and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM

Well done, Jim. That should shut 'em up. Idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:06 PM

THATCHER, MI5, THE POLICE AND PAEDOPHELIA Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:35 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9657036/How-Tory-paedophile-claims-were-covered-up.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-mp-enoch-powell-investigated-as-alleged-member-of-westminster-paedophile-network-10142235.html

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/11/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-tory-paedophile-scanda

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238188/Sir-Edward-Heath-paedophile-says-police-chief.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-thatchers-government-covered-up-a-vip-pedophile-ring

http://theleveller.org/2015/03/burd-epstein-phonebook/

http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/u-k-conservative-mp-killed-boy-at-sex-party-victim-of-pedophile-network-claims/wcm/654cef11-4aed-4395-a726-af26918c971c?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2F

Mad as a bag of frogs
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:26 PM

There are plenty of "pens" down here in Cornwall, Jon. I suppose it's a bit closer to Wales. Not quite so many in East Cornwall though - it's a bit more Anglo-Saxon and a bit less Celtic round here!

No-one's denying you the right to discuss anything, Keith. Your problem is that you can't seem to find anyone to discuss things with just now. You can't force people to discuss what YOU want to discuss. That would be bullying. And you wouldn't know what normal and decent meant if they reared up and bit you on the arse. And I don't suppose you'll get too many takers for your Bury Council offering. Actually, it's a damn fine local authority. My old disabled mum gets amazing help from them in all sorts of ways. On the other hand, maybe I won't get too many takers for my Tory-sex-parties-with-underage-boys offering either. Some you win and some...you lose....😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:21 PM

""A paedophile inquiry into a Labour politician was deliberately delayed by senior council officers nthe poll."
JAY-SUS!!!
You are now a certified lunatic Keith - does you8r obsession know no bounds?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:17 PM

Oooo! Someone's cage is rattled, using foul and abusive language.

Now should be a yellow card from a Mod at least.

Incidentally that same poster is obviously not very bright, despite another poster saying nummerous times that he is bored with that poster, he is still trying to ensure an outcome that will not happen.

Meanwhile on the Connemara coast in glorious sunshine we watched about 3 hours of the local regatta, sailing and rowing on a beautiful bay with a stunning background of mountains.

Truly, spectacular, breathtaking and utterly beautiful.

Out to the bar we visited on Thursday for more great music, song .......... and Guinness!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 11:05 AM

Thinking again on Pen, I guess we could also consider Ben. It confuses the hell out of me but in Welsh for one, words mutate. I think pen would change to ben if you put a y in front of it. For those that played football in a village with Welsh speakers, "ar y ben" could be a header (on the head, I think).

Hopefully this time round, it's over and out for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 10:48 AM

The scandal you dismiss because reported in the Manchester Evening News is not that a Labour Councillor was a paedophile, but that child protection measures were delayed for political reasons.

The Times,
"A paedophile inquiry into a Labour politician was deliberately delayed by senior council officers in an attempt to boost the party's chances in the 2015 general election, an independent inquiry has found.
A report has concluded that Mike Owen, the former chief executive of Bury council, and Mark Carriline, its head of children's services, did not follow child protection rules for political reasons.
This was allegedly in an effort to ensure that claims surrounding Simon Carter, a disgraced former councillor, did not surface before the poll."

" the reports found that Mr Owen and Mr Carriline waited up to five weeks before carrying out child-protection measures that should have been implemented within 48 hours of the allegations being made.
They took eight days to inform the two schools of which Carter was a governor."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/council-delayed-abuse-inquiry-to-aid-labour-qfwp3ntkb

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 10:26 AM

Steve,
Well I think that trying to steer the thread away....

Normal decent folk would just withdraw from a thread they did not like.
You people feel somehow entitled to determine how the discussion should go, dominate it with a mass of postings from your gang and deny anyone the right to discuss what they choose.
As Joe said, you are just a gang of bullies who dominate every political thread.

Dave,
I am just not prepared to discuss anything with a devious sociopath who will stop at nothing to win imagined points. Is that clear enough?

Then fuck off and allow anyone else to discuss what they want with who they want, instead of joining the continuing domination of the thread by your gang of cronies.

You now admit that it is me personally you have a problem with. Mainly that I keep showing up your arguments as vacuous whims that you can not support.

Why can't you just say if you find Shah's comments anti-Semitic or not?
What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:31 AM

Well I think that trying to steer the thread away from the interminable attempts by a couple of idiots to taint the Labour Party at all costs by clutching at whatever straws they can dig out is a Good Thing. They are the trolls - yes, you, Keith, bobad and Iains - and we are trying to restore sanity. Thread drift is a peccadillo compared to the hateful, non-stop attempts at smearing by yesterday's people. The Manchester Evening News is a tatty right-wing rag, and in another thread Iains is trying to taint the BBC by resorting to Breitbart. Of course these things go on. That's life. Wouldn't like to hold too many Tories up as paragons of virtue either... but there are well over half a million of us in the Labour Party now and every member I've met has the one aim of trying to make this country a fairer place to live in. Go and dig for dirt elsewhere. Try the Tory Party for starters. You'll have a field day, I promise you.

And keep posting, Jon. You're a breath of fresh air next to some of these right-wing thread-polluters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:03 AM

fwiw, my participation in this drift was only a foolish attempt to apply some comments I made in another. I think I can reasonably try to paraphrase that as that some threads just go on with rows, positions are fixed and even another 1000 posts will not change anybody's mind. I believe I then suggested talking about things we have in common like gardening instead.   

This participation has already been taken as being part of a gang who I don't think I could join even if it existed (I'd differ in my belief there is a God for starters...) and apparently a desire to hide some story about a Labour cover up. Unfortunately, that is the way life works and I suppose we can all be guilty of it - putting reasons we want to see into things...

For the record, as for what I'd rather be discussing here. I'd rather be away but lack the sel discipline. The ugly truth is that I wrestle with drink problems. I can post for other reasons and, eg. do know a little about abc (I fixed the mandotab converter, originally from a site I started, fairly recently) and do eg try to play mandolin and tenor banjo in Irish sessions, etc. but if I get stuck down the bottom, it's usually connected, at least to start with, with a round of drinking. The sad fact is that in some ways, I view my own relationship with the forum as tainted and the bottom of the line poisoned. In saner times, I usually stay away rather than perhaps look in, find a nice thread (eg gardening or birds round the back) and then find I've got myself caught up in something else...

I genuinely do not want to feel the bottom of the line is poisoned (and I see my own good times here as well as the bad ones) and I don not feel matters from religion to politics should not be questioned. A question there is perhaps more whether the belligerence here could ever enable it...

I expect to get ripped apart for this but I'm trying to be open in terms of the way I'm seeing things at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:59 AM

Hasn't it occurred to you fellers that that Keith's obsessive crusade against the "massive Labour problem of (well it only seems to be) has more to do with her non-English religious culture/colour/racial/non-whitishness origins than it does her supposed antisemitic slip?
After all, anybody can make a biigotted slip, what with her , "cultural implants", "slave owning travellers", "brainwashed Irish children...
Don't let that stop you lads - it keeps him from infesting other threads
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:38 AM

"Inanes link is not even worthy of comment"
What a sorry human being you are if you consider child abuse as not worthy of comment.



#
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181783/Did-Jeremy-Corbyn-try-protect-fellow-Left-wingers-implicated-paedophile-scandal.
https://labour25.com/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:15 AM

I would have been more than tempted to use the train for that bit, Steve! For a folky I am no traditionalist :-)

Inanes link is not even worthy of comment.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:04 AM

Are you implying that this is a "serious Labour paedophilia problem?" Ever thought of being a Sun journalist, Iains? Hey, world out there, would you rather keep this as a digging-the-dirt-on-Labour thread or would you rather read about the Yorkshire Dales?

Dave, when I did the Three Peaks we started with Whernside and ended with Penyghent, thinking it was a bit more climactic that way. It did leave us with a long, weary trudge back to where we'd parked the car for Whernside, I must admit. I made the cardinal error of doing it in insufficiently broken-in boots. Took four quick pints in a pub in Settle to ease the pain....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:43 AM

Oh Dear. No wonder they want to babble about the peaks.
This came out of the trough!


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-bury-council-officers-deliberately-13362889

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 03:54 AM

It can get busy at times when the 3 peak challengers who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for are out. Penyghent is the first of the three so they are usualy quite boisterous then. Wait until they have done Whernside as well and realise that they also have Ingleborough to climb to see them quieten down :-)

Usually it is pretty quiet though. I have been up mid-week when the peak was covered in snow and not seen another person. I could see Blackpool tower but couldn't make out if anyone was showing their arse off it though :-) Distance to do the classic walk from Horton is not far at all - not much more than 6 miles - but the final ascent to the peak is bloomin' steep! Worth visiting the limestone pinnacle and Hull Pot, both just off the main path, on the way down. Once saw an old dear in a pink tracksuit and trainers mooching about the pinnacle so you can guess that it is pretty easy underfoot from there down to Horton.

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:40 PM

Penyghent is a fair old walk from the nearest town and is over 2000 feet high. So it's pretty quiet. Balm to the soul, I'd say. You'll meet the odd aficionado on your way up and down. But they are like you, true appreciators of all that's best in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:08 PM

"and my mothers preference for a particular section of Snowdonia"

(different section of)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:50 PM

O dear... I'd best stay out after this and will attempt to do so but to try to get back on purely the OT drit...

A question for those who like Penyghent. Is is quiet?

I ask this as I mentioned Snowdon and my mothers preference for a particular section of Snowdonia. I guess reasons could include easy access (in crude terms, from our then Conwy/Llandudno area, just drive down the right side of the river a bit, turn right and you could, eg, be in Cwm Egiau) but one big one was that it was quiet. Snowdon literally had trainloads of people but I believe some of her walks were of the type, at least then, where you might only meet a couple of others in a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM

Farting? Maybe he tried to eat that hill of beans...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:02 PM

I am just not prepared to discuss anything with a devious sociopath who will stop at nothing to win imagined points. Is that clear enough?

I don't think it is an echo, Raggy. Someone farting maybe?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 02:22 PM

Face it, Keith. If everyone who no longer wanted to discuss it with you stayed away, you'd be talking to yourself. You're a forum pest, Keith. You've flogged your dead horse for so long that it's probably thoroughly tenderised by now. It's boring, Keith. There's a lot to discuss about politics. But your sick obsession with non-existent Labour antisemitism is belly-up. Gone to meet its maker. Dead in the water. Gone to join the choir invisible. Rung down the final curtain. It's an ex-topic, Keith. This is a late issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:32 PM

Has anyone else noticed there is an echo on this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM

Had a great last night in a bar right on the West coast, you can see the Atlantic from the window, you can't miss it, it's just across the lane.

The landlord Ritchie is a great guy, plays Guitar, Banjo, Mandolin and sings all very well, his good lady Bernie is a delight, there was Eugene on Box (very, very good) Eamonn on Bodhran, me and my good lady on guitar and vocals, a couple from Huddersfield both on Guitar and vocals, another English lass on vocals .........

I think we left there about 2 in the morning !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:26 PM

Dave,
Keith - I have told you my reason. That you refuse to accept it is neither here nor there.

Of course I do not believe it. No-one would!
It makes no sense and is unbelievable.
Do you believe her comments anti-Semitic, yes or no?
How can that be " ignored, called lies or twisted?"

It can not be.
You are being dishonest.

It is not that you do not want to discuss it. You could just stay away.
It is because you do not want it discussed by anyone.

Your presence here in force is to deter anyone who might want to.

Your tactics are despicable and I hope it is being noted by someone and something done to save the forum from you domineering bullies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:21 PM

Interesting to hear that this mild, gentle bit of harmless and non-combative thread-drift is being put down to a gang of domineering bullies (especially when you consider that Keith's currently-missing regular ally is Teribus 😂). Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. In any case, none of this amounts to a hill of beans. Definitely not what you'd call over the top. I reckon Keith needs to seek alp.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:05 PM

OK, I know the sun's been strong but I don't want to hear any jokes about Brown Willy...

Anyway, I must take a shower now as Mrs Steve is complaining that MacGillycuddy reeks...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 12:59 PM

I really hope someone is someone is noting some of the responses and will take action as well, Keith. How does it feel to only have ake in your corner?

Steve, I hope you are not going to slope off after that posting? I thought down in your neck of the woods you would have been tor-n between posting it and reaching your pinnacle first.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:13 AM

Oh dear. Looks you've got a mountain to climb with us lot now, Keith. Hope you're not have a fit of peak over it. If it's not one thing it's summit else with you.



Whaddam I like! 🤡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:09 AM

Keith 10......the Gang of bullies Nil.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:53 AM

I always understood Penyghent to mean 'hill of wind'. Which it certainly is after a night at the Golden Lion in Horton.

Keith - I have told you my reason. That you refuse to accept it is neither here nor there. Furthermore, after my road to Domestos moment at 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM, I think we will fare a lot better if I do not discuss anything of importance with you again. But I am more than happy to talk about my beloved Yorkshire Dales if you like.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:22 AM

Dave, it was you who raised the issue of Shah on the thread again.
You have no reason for refusing to state, yes or no, if you think Shah's comments were ant-Semitic.

No-one could twist that, so you are being dishonest about your reason for not doing so.

It is not that you do not want to discuss it. You could just stay away.
It is because you do not want it discussed.

Your presence here in force is to deter anyone who might want to.

Your tactics are despicable and I hope it is being noted by someone and something done to save the forum from you domineering bullies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:50 AM

I believe it's a mystery, and I've read about that Welsh suggestion before. Another thing is that I always write it as a single word, unhyphenated. At one time the Ordnance Survey got into hot water for adding a superfluous "hill" after the name.

Nearby there's another favourite of mine that's a "Pen-," namely Pendle. I believe that it's incorrect to refer to it as Pendle Hill.

Anyway, they're both lovely and they're both in God's own country!

What group behaviour, Keith? We're all rugged individuals here!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:33 AM

I'm curious of the name Penyghent. Perhaps I'll look it up further (other than briefly finding it is Yorkshire dales and a Wiki article which suggests Cumbric) but the name would otherwise to me look Welsh (I don't speak it, only know a few words) or at least pen y would amount to "top of the". Wiki suggests "ghent" as similar to "gwynt" so "top of the wind". How do those of you who have walked there read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:24 AM

Who needs to worry about what politicians said when we have wonders like this to behold

Heavy rain brings Long Gill, near Ingleton, back to life

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:32 AM

Keith

As I said, there is no reason given there for your refusing to state your view.

That is a perfect example of my description. My exact words in case you really did miss them are

I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in making any comments about anything that Keith is involved in. Any comments that disagree with his already set mind will be ignored, called lies or twisted to suit his agenda. If anything like that is mentioned, the second line of defense is to call everyone who disagrees bullies with shitty moralities who are just getting at him. Makes a mockery of any decent discussion.

A perfectly good reason to not state my view. In this case you have ignored it.

And damn you - You got to Ben Vorlich :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:29 AM

I did Dave.
As I said, there is no reason given there for your refusing to state your view.

Your gang is dominating the thread with its presence while refusing to enter discussion.
Your excuse that you are afraid of me is pathetic.

Your group behaviour is not conducive to friendly discussion on this forum. I hope someone is taking note of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:25 AM

You're making a tit of yourself, Keith. Perhaps the Pap of Glencoe, on the slopes of which my brother claimed that he lost his virginity.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:26 AM

See post of 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

Dave, there is no reason given there for your refusing to state your view.
Do you agree with Steve or not?
Why won't you tell us?
Claiming to be afraid of what I might say is hardly convincing, and if you do not want to debate, why post at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:02 AM

See post of 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:59 AM

If you will not comment on the issue, why do you people come to the thread at all?

If you have no opinion, or are afraid to express one, why post here?

It appears that your motive is just to dominate the thread and stop certain views being expressed, by bullying and intimidation.

As Joe said, you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Steve, can you support your view that her comments were not anti-Semitic, and calling me a liar over it?

Dave, where do you stand on Shah's comments? Do you agree with Steve, or with Shah herself and the political parties including her own, the Labour party?

If you refuse to speak, will you at least tell us what you are afraid of?
What is your problem?