BS: UK nuclear subs

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:01 AM

"Confusing "culture" with "religion" again Jom."
Confusing "Jom" with Jim again Teribus - and you seemed to be making an effort to grow up - maybe one day eh?
Answer the points rather than throwing up diversive and inaccurate points to create smokescreens.
British Muslim Pakistanis refers to a race an culture and a religion
Britain describes itself as a Christian country, even though only 53% of its people describe themselves as "not religious" and only 30% regard themselves as religious
'Christian' refers to culture as well as religion.
Stop nit-picking, you aren't skilful enough to get away with it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 01:17 AM

Confusing "culture" with "religion" again Jom.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 04:05 AM

"What about "cultures" that treat women as chattels? "
What about them?
These are not the cultures we are talking about.
The people we are discussing are British Muslims - some of them have lived under British/Muslim culture for decades and absorbed our culture, good and evil
All these National cultures developed under British rule anyway - we were happy enough to live with or off them while we were exploiting them - now, it would appear, we are happy to use them as an excuse to denigrate people and keep them out.
Generally, those who move to Britain, or anywhere settle in and merge with the native culture - if they are allowed to - they may tend to live in their own communities for practical reasons or for companionship in hostile surroundings, or even for safety, but they obey our laws and merge into our society, when they are allowed to.
If you care to read it up, this is the advice given by Muslim teachers - merge into the host society and obey their laws.
Extremist traditions are a problem in any community or religion, that includes Christianity, Judaism and Muslim, but, as I have pointed out, the tiny handful of criminals we are talking about have rejected the Muslim Culture - they certainly aren't representative of it.
They drink alcohol against their religious teachings, they have sex outside of marriage - strictly forbidden in their tradition - they are not traditionalists so they can in no way be described as part of the Muslim culture.
The problem with these misfits is not that they cling to Muslim culture but that they have adopted some of the worst aspects of ours.
We have a society that treats women as 'available' - take a look at some of the readily available porn sites. or take a look at some of the magazines available in newsagents, or turn to page three of The Sun - women as available meat.
Marital rape in Britain was only introduced into law in the late 1970s, more than 80% of rapes go unreported and it is estimated that 994 OUT OF A 1000 RAPISTS TRIED FOR THEIR CRIMES GO FREE
A raped woman who reports the offence undergoes two ordeals - first the rape itself, then her ordeal in court where every inch of her own behaviour us put under scrutiny and, if possible, used against her.
WE HAVE NO CLAIM TO A MORAL GROUND AS FAR AS THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN BRITAIN and now America has a President who suggest that it's OK to "just go up and grab a woman's pussy if the fancy takes you"
As Ghandi said of Western civilsation, "It would be a good idea".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 02:05 AM

What about "cultures" that treat women as chattels? Condone child brides? Arranged marriages between total strangers? FGM? "Honour" killings?

By the way "Christians" are neither a "racial" or a "cultural" group, Christianity is a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:48 PM

"Yet for some reason Jim only thinks that this happens in Christian households and communities."
Don't be more stupid than you've already proved yourself to be
I have neer suggested such a thing and have made a point of saying so - no community or racial group is immune fro criminals
It seems you failure to find examples in defence of Keith has reduced you to his habit of lying
One meal you should have taken a longer spoon to
If you can't be homest, be absent
You really are not very good at this, are you - chence your place in the pecking order!!
NO RACIAL OR CULTURAL GROUP IS IMPLANTED TO TEND THEM TOWARDS CHILD RAPE - CHRISTIANS INCLUDED
SUCH BEHAVIOUR IS EITHER A MENTAL ABBERATION OR A PERSONAL CHOICE - CULTURE HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH SUCH BEHAVIOUR
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:41 PM

You're the one who has a pathological obsession with this fantasy of yours just as you do with some post of Keith's from years ago that you're obsessed with. Let it go man - it's not healthy.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:30 PM

Stop worrying. You were busted but the mods have let you off. What more could you ask for! 😂😂😂

Over over over and definitely out out out this time. Don't let the sword of truth penetrate too far up your delicate bottom!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:22 PM

If it bothers you, take it to the mods.

Not bothered at all, just letting it be known that you're a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:57 PM

Another misse'd apostrophe. Hells teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:56 PM

If it bothers you, take it to the mods. But you're bang to rights. You did what you did and we all saw it. Over to you. More importantly, as I havent the time to carry on with this, over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:27 PM

"The individual came from a devoutly Christian family, such people tend to absorb family influences" - Jim Carroll

Yet for some reason Jim only thinks that this happens in Christian households and communities. Wonder what reasoning and logic he employs to come to that conclusion - apparently no family influences are absorbed in homes and families of other religions. He also seems to think that "culture" in which someone is brought up in and lives his/her whole life in is not a factor - when of course it's influence is far greater than that of religion

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:23 PM

You were posting both as bobad and as an anonymous Guest until the rules changed.

You are a liar.

Had you not been abusing the latter identity in order to call us names

I don't need anonymity to call you what you are - I would not hesitate to tell it to your face if I were to meet you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 12:16 PM

The thread was "WWI, was No-Man's Land."
I gave you the date and time of my post.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 11:15 AM

What was the other thread, Keith? I asked you for chapter and verse and you haven't delivered. Why the hesitation? No, really, I want to take a really good look at it. Either that or I'll just have to watch the Leicester match this evening instead. Do we take it that your reluctance to tell us which thread it was speaks volumes?

I never lose, by the way, though I have occasionally been known to defer success.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 11:04 AM

Everything I've said to you in the last 24 hours is the whole truth. I know you don't like it. Take it up with the mods. I still have the PM correspondence I had but I don't divulge that sort of thing in threads for all to read. You were posting both as bobad and as an anonymous Guest until the rules changed. Had you not been abusing the latter identity in order to call us names I wouldn't have given a stuff. Call me a liar all you like. I'm not, and you won't provoke me into divulging private messages here. Ask the mods and perhaps they will confirm these things for you if you're that bothered. They may not even remember our exchanges but I have the wherewithal to remind them if necessary. I can tell you that they're not bothered at all, unfortunately, by what went on before the rule change, otherwise you wouldn't be here now. Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:52 AM

And stop sniping.

And you stop lying.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM

"We are all "implanted""
Nobody is culturally implanted tio re children
"(not my choice of word)"
You chose to accept it as a description of what you believe
"I made no claims about it"
Yes you did - you have never produced a single quote of anybody else making such an obscene statement - nor has your running mate.
No quote will ever be produced from any of those you named - it is the stuff of extrtermination camps and white supremacist filth.
"I produced numerous quotes "
Utter lies
"My only claim was that there was an over-representation"
Your claim was that an entire racial culture was culturally implanted to rape chidren - you have been given it and have supported it countless times
"Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues."
You instigated the present discussion by asking for examples of your extremism - this is the best one that came to hand
It will remain relevant while you continue to deny your extremism, while you continue to tell lies about who said it and while you continue to expound the views you expounded in 2011
You lose!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:13 AM

Steve,
Well this discussion about Wheatcroft has been about the "not an historian" thread, which, like other threads, stands alone as a discrete area of discussion.

No. It is about the Wheatcroft discussion which took place on two threads simultaneously with the same participants including you.

I introduced the article into the discussion because it wholly supported my case, and I quoted the relevant passage in full.

Your case against me has failed.
You lose.

Now, can you challenge anything I have posted in this thread this year?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:09 AM

You have not prodeced a single quote approaching that sickening suggestion, neither you oer your pack-master will do so

We are all "implanted" (not my choice of word) to some extent by our culture, and I produced numerous quotes that linked that culture to the offending.
I made no claims about it, I just said I believed them and asked why you did not.
My only claim was that there was an over-representation, which was true then and has been confirmed many times since.

Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues.
Why are you determined to make every thread about me?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

No we can't leave 2011 and 2014 just because it makes you feel uncomfortable and forces you to account for yourself. On two threads, eh? Well this discussion about Wheatcroft has been about the "not an historian" thread, which, like other threads, stands alone as a discrete area of discussion. In that thread you misrepresented Wheatcroft - why you can't admit that God only knows - by stating that he said something that he didn't, and that would have stood for evermore had I not picked you up. It's taken you over two years to dredge up the other thread ( still don't know which one - tell me and I'll do the forensics on that one as well, or maybe you'd rather I didn't...?)

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:04 AM

"We are all "implanted" (not my choice of word)"
Nobody is implanted to rape children - you claim that an entire culture is
You have not prodeced a single quote approaching that sickening suggestion, neither you oer your pack-master will do so
Your ongoing claim that you have produced a quote then refusing to reproduce it here only confirms your dishonesty - which is fine by me.
In the and, it doesn't matter anyway
Whoever holds such views is a profound racist and a menace to decent society - no matter where those views came from (or, in your case - where you claim they came from)
"Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues."
You say that whenever you are at a loss - your own persistent extremism makes every thread about you - your choice, not mine
If you continue to uphold your obnoxious views, has nothing to do with 2011 - it is ongoing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:50 AM

Jim,
We are all "implanted" (not my choice of word) to some extent by our culture, and I produced numerous quotes that linked that culture to the offending.
I made no claims about it, I just said I believed them and asked why you did not.
My only claim was that there was an over-representation, which was true then and has been confirmed many times since.

Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues.
Why are you determined to make every thread about me?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:44 AM

Steve,
There is no such post in the thread "I'm not an historian but..." at 03.55 pm on 10 December. If this is supposed to be a reference to another thread, you are being completely ridiculous.

Not at all. The same discussion was running on two parallel threads and the same people, including you, were contributing on both.

I had already quoted the passage in full, and you and everyone else involved had seen it.

. You were pontificating about people's quotes. I am demonstrating that your past behaviour, over which you are unrepentant, clearly shows that you are the last person in the world who should be lecturing other people about their quotes.

I do use quotes extensively. If you have to go back to 2014 to find a single one to challenge, and that challenge fails anyway, then you have proved that I am very well placed to pontificate on the matter.
Your case against me has failed.
You lose.

Now, can you challenge anything I have posted in this thread this year?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:11 AM

"Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"
The individual came from a devoutly Christian family, such people tend to absorb family influences, he used his knowledge of Christianity to entrap his victims - there is no reason to believe he wasn't a devout Christian
Recent history has shown that some of the worst paedofiles in society are not just practicing and devout Christian bu in fact have used their position as clergymen to rape and abuse children - a situation that has prevailed for centuries and is still being uncovered.
"Not so Jim - he even gave you their names. Did you bother to check the information given?"
I most certainly dis and I quoted it back at him in its correct context
Did you?
BOTH YOU AND HE HAVE FAILED TO COME UP WITH A SINGLE QUOTE WHICH IN ANY WAY CORRESPONDS TO KEITH'S OBSCENE ACCUSATION THAT ALL PAKISTANI MUSLIM MALES ARE CULTURALLY IMPLANTED TO RAPE UNDERAGE YOUNG WOMEN AND HAVE TO RESIST THAT IMPLANT TO PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM DOING SO
Instead, you prefer to defend the religion of Britain's declared worst paedofile
I can't begin to tell you how refreshing it is to encounter somebody who has his priorities right - especially when he is a friend of our heroic Troll, Bobad!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:14 PM

It's bloody awful round here sometimes, Greg. We get Teribus making an art out of missing the point, akenaton not getting anything at all and bobad and Keith making careers out of dissembling. Give me a bloody raucous shouting match full of insults and swearing any day with someone who is at least trying to be be straightforward and honest! Let me have men about me that are fat! Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights! Yond Iains has a lean and hungry look! He thinks too much (er, bad line, Will)! Such men are dangerous! (Well more daft than dangerous but who am I to gainsay the Bard!) That's why I started me Tr*** thread and why I keep keep talking about flowers and hills and dales. The diversions lift the spirit. Sod the naysayers. I'm determined to be the worst below-the-line drifter of threads in the history of humanity from now on. Let's annoy the annoyers with pleasantries! Let's sprinkle rose petals over the swamp!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:49 PM

I think bobad's missed his/her calling, Steve. He/She should be an advisor to president Trump. Perhaps he/she should submit a CV. Da Prez is always looking for good sources of "alternative facts".

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:42 PM

Oh dear, that's got him frazzled! There was no divulging of private "information." You were investigated and it was found that you and the anonymous guest were operating from the same internet address. That's as much as I was told. I don't know who you are or where you live or even whether you're a boy or a girl. I haven't a clue what that address was and I don't want to know, in fact, I don't know anything about internet addresses and could well be using the wrong terminology. If anyone asked me for mine I wouldn't know how to begin to look for it. I still have the message but that is as much as I'm going to say about it. Take it up with the mods if it bothers you so much. But I assure you that the person in question acted with the utmost integrity, which is more than can be said for your behaviour at the time.

And stop sniping.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:33 PM

what I said about you was confirmed to me in a PM by a moderator

Then that moderator is as much a liar as you are and besides any forum moderator who would divulge personal information about other members would be in violation of the forum's privacy code.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:55 PM

Oh, sure. Sorry, mate, but what I said about you was confirmed to me in a PM by a moderator who checked the internet addresses. Now stop sniping. You never have anything to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM

As duplicitous as secretly posting under two identities at once in order to call people names?

More "Made-Up-Shit"™ from one of the jackals.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:30 PM

As duplicitous as secretly posting under two identities at once in order to call people names? As duplicitous as coming here only to snipe, never to contribute to a discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:22 PM

Carroll caught up being duplicitous again......tsk! tsk!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM

Sneaky bastard Jim:

" Jim Carroll - 21 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM

"that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"

INSTEAD OF:

"Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"

If you are going to quote then quote the whole thing in context. What that means is that your Link Title and Article title was incorrect and deliberately misleading - in other words par for the course for your links.

"What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom " - Teribus

A blatant lie - Jim Carroll

Not so Jim - he even gave you their names. Did you bother to check the information given?

"There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim." - Jim Carroll

No it is not Keith's claim for the umpteenth soddin' time. Why don't you read posts before responding?

Certain societies on this planet regard women as chattels Jim, I note that you do not condemn that. When members of such "cultures" (S.F.A. to do with religion) come to the UK and settle here for whatever reason, then that part of their "culture"(S.F.A. to do with religion) gets abandoned as it is against the laws of this country to treat women in such a fashion. If they don't like it they can form political parties and campaign until they have the support and political clout the disenfranchise over half of our population. Personally I believe that the emancipation of women was the greatest advance for the benefit of mankind during the course of the twentieth century, maybe you disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:29 PM

There is no such post in the thread "I'm not an historian but..." at 03.55 pm on 10 December. If this is supposed to be a reference to another thread, you are being completely ridiculous. This conversation is about the sequence of posts in the above-named thread. Your first reference to the Guardian piece in the "not an historian" thread was the lie in question. Had I not challenged you, it would have stood forever. Quite likely never even mentioned again. You are piling dishonesty on dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM

"f we are a "gang" Jim, we are willing to debate/discuss any issue seriously."
You are part of a gang Ake and, as you have only written tw lines in this entire discussion it is none of your business what I write
I assume by " we are willing ", oyu mean the Royal "we"
I have not screamed anything - I put what I said in red and large font to underline the fact that, having claimed a dozen time that I am a liar, he is lying in the face of his own written statements.
Surely, even you must recognise that your use of the term "we" is an indication that you consider yourself s synchronized team, having persistently accusing us of same
Kindly remove your foot from your mouth and eiher join in with respect or ride off into the sunset - I really don't mind which
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:09 PM

AJP Taylor - Vulgar
Alan Clarke - Largely Fraudulent

It's in the passage you have just cited.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Wrong book, Prof.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:04 PM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 12:31 PM

"That is a lie Steve. I quoted in full when I first introduced that article into the debate."

Chapter and verse, time and date, please.

"It is not necessary to quote in full every time it is referenced."

It is necessary to not misquote. Wheatcroft did not call Taylor's book "fraudulent." You said he did. He didn't. That isn't conflating or speaking generally or anything else. It's a lie. Very, very simple. You are bang to rights.

"...thereby rubbishing your views and supporting mine."

You were not rubbishing any views that I had expressed even remotely in connection with this matter of the two books. This attempt at deception has nothing whatever to do with my views. It has everything to do with your dishonesty, pretending that someone said something that it is glaringly obvious they didn't.

"No deception, and no need to deceive. He was supporting my view and rubbishing yours."

See above. Completely untrue. Bears no resemblance to how the matter was being discussed.

"But why are you rehashing a 2014 discussion here?"

It isn't the discussion I'm rehashing. I have no interest in doing that. You were
pontificating about people's quotes. I am demonstrating that your past behaviour, over which you are unrepentant, clearly shows that you are the last person in the world who should be lecturing other people about their quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

Interesting Ake that you don't move off topic, because the title of this thread is UK nuclear subs.

As I posted earlier I really don't care, very much like a conversation in a pub over a few pints the topic varies wildly.

The crocus are now in flower.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

If we are a "gang" Jim, we are willing to debate/discuss any issue seriously. We do not move off topic or start screaming obscene insults, we respond to whatever comes up in the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:30 AM

"A classic example of Carroll's misrepresentation and "Made-Up-Shit"
Feel free to prove it is not true Bobad
Can't you get your own dialogue instead of repeating Teribus's mindlessness - whoops, I forgot you are a member of the Fucked Up Four
All male
"You will find no single quote of me claiming that, but numerous quotes in that thread of me refuting that it had anything to do with Islam."
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" "
What the **** are "male Pakistani Muslims" - Bush Baptists?
And you still have not produced an example of somebody talking about "cultural Implants
DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR UNLESS YOU WISH TO HUMILIATE YOURSELF EVEN FURTHER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:24 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 nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

"NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here"

A classic example of Carroll's misrepresentation and "Made-Up-Shit"™, it's what he resorts to when presented with facts that destroy his argument.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

Jim,
There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim.

That is a lie Jim.
You will find no single quote of me claiming that, but numerous quotes in that thread of me refuting that it had anything to do with Islam.

You only ever quote one of my thousands of posts. You misrepresent that one and the rest make a liar of you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:00 AM

Steve,
You quoted the thing in full only after you were challenged for incorrectly stating that Taylor's book had been called "fraudulent."

That is a lie Steve. I quoted in full when I first introduced that article into the debate.

It is not necessary to quote in full every time it is referenced.
I conflated his terms of dismissal when further referring to his rubbishing of those texts thereby rubbishing your views and supporting mine.
No deception, and no need to deceive. He was supporting my view and rubbishing yours.

But why are you rehashing a 2014 discussion here?
If you could challenge what I put in this thread you would.
Instead you go 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, obsessive little gang of "men."
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:25 AM

DtG Did you get my email about the song info for Dave in Scotland.


PS Don't worry they'll never crack our cypher!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM

"that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"
It makes no difference
The point I put him up was he was an example of an indigenous paedophile
Surely you are not suggesting that Christians are not paedophiles?
You want examples of Christians using their position to molest children - no problem
This is the man's actual background
"The former grammar school pupil, born to devout Christian parents in Ashford, Kent, led a secret life as a prolific paedophile, targeting children as young as six-months-old to satisfy his depraved desires."
Smoke and mirrors again
"What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom "
A blatant lie - he has never produced examples of anybody saying anything resembling his statement and has refused to do so.
You want to prove that is not true, you ***** produce them
There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim.
Now - come back when you have evidence of "cultural implants" and until you do, do not call me a liar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

Haven't a clue what happened to the text of my last post:

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

Should read:

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom coupled with the conclusions drawn from those investigating the incidents that there appeared to be a cultural dimension linking the perpetrators along with "institutionalised political correctness".

Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:56 AM

Jim Carroll - 21 Feb 17 - 04:24 AM

As a response to my last post that Jom is pathetic.

So all the detectives assigned to Operation Midland, the Government and M.I.5 are all corrupt. If that was the case numbnuts it would not have taken them 16 months to find nothing, for budgetary reasons it would have been wrapped up a damn sight quicker than that. If it was a cover up then no way in God's creation would those named and who were being "protected" in this supposed cover up would be f**kin' stupid enough, or allowed to take legal action to sue those responsible for blackening their names and reputations - Don't you ever think, question or reason before you write anything??

"Article itself puts an estimated 750,000 males in the UK could possibly be interested in underaged sex"

And those 750,000 males includes Muslin males in the UK Jom {Not all of them by any means before you launch yourself down that route}. Those 750,000 males are NOT paedophiles, if you think they are then you obviously did not read the article.


Which is exatly what Keith said about Muslims and you have supported

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

"NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here"

Who said any evidence had been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophilia? Three prominent members of the Muslim community and those investigating these sex gangs in Rotherham, Bristol and Oxford all commented on the predominance of perpetrators being British-Pakistani males suggesting that there may be "Cultural" reasons - Note that Jom CULTURAL reasons NOT RELIGIOUS reasons - Don't say they are the same because they most certainly are not.

In the case of the Bristol Gang:
"The gang coerced the girls into sex with small payments of money, gifts of drugs and alcohol, and by persuading them that having sex with many men was part of "Somali 'CULTURE AND TRADITION'

No mention or reference there to RELIGION.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

The moving finger writes ...................

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:00 AM

You can't "conflate" vulgar and fraudulent any more than you can conflate cornflakes and raspberry ice cream. You quoted the thing in full only after you were challenged for incorrectly stating that Taylor's book had been called "fraudulent." Hope you don't mind my putting that in quotes all the time, after all it's what you did. You weren't conflating anything. That's just a devious way of trying to legitimise telling a bare-faced lie.You were making up a porkie to suit whatever case you thought you were making. That's lost in the ether and I care not a jot about who was making what case (I certainly wasn't using that stuff to make any "case" - go on, have a look), but your disreputable behaviour is there for all to see. Your continuing efforts at deception seem to indicate that you hope no-one will bother looking. But there's always one. Me.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM

Rag,
I quoted you verbatim.

No. You partially quoted, leaving out the bits that explained what I actually meant.

Steve,
refused to admit that he ascribed a comment to a person who did not make that comment.

I declared the passage with his actual comments IN FULL. I gave both words used to rubbish those texts.
Referring to it later I conflated the two, BECAUSE THE FULL DISMISSAL HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
There was no deception and no need for deception because the article supported my case and dismissed yours.

But why are we here?
If you could challenge what I 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, obsessive men.
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:48 AM

Your case on the thread when Wheatcroft was first brought up challenged Keith A's stance related to three points put by modern day historians specialising in the period of the First World War. You challenged the statement that they were of the opinion that, in comparison to the other combatant powers involved, the British Army was generally well led. To back up your case you mentioned two works, A.J.P. Taylor's book "The First World War: an Illustrated History" and Alan Clark's "Donkey's", Keith A, myself and others pointed out that both those works had been critically reviewed by historians at the time and both had been found wanting. (Clark himself admitted that the quote from which the title of his book was taken had been made up by himself - so that would account for the "largely fraudulent", i.e. based on a falsehood.) It was also pointed out to you that any historian writing about that period in the 1960s (Taylor & Clark) did not have access to vast amounts of material available to historians writing about the subject in the last thirty years. As you based your "case" on works that were regarded as being unrefined, uneducated, illiterate (all synonyms for the word "vulgar" used in it's intended sense) and largely fraudulent that was yet another WWI thread in which your "mobbing" of Keith A did not quite pan out as you had hoped.

But I didn't mention those works AT ALL except in the context of Keith's misquote. I certainly did not try to use them to back up any case. Know why not? Because I haven't read them! I have no argument with Wheatcroft's analysis because I don't know the books. I don't know anything about Wheatcroft either. I didn't challenge the statements of any of these chaps, contrary to what you have said. You must be mixing me up with someone else, mate. The quote from you in this post appears to be an attempt to deflect from from the problem with Keith. If you are of the OPINION that the books were fraudulent, vulgar, whatever, I believe you. But this has nothing to do with my opinion or your opinion or Keith's opinion. It's really, really simple. I'll distil it into a single sentence for you. On Dec 16 2014 in the thread "I'm not a historian but..." Keith stated that The Guardian had called Taylor's book " fraudulent," whereas no such comment had appeared in the paper. Now I don't really see why you can't set aside all the bluster and flannel that you and Keith have surrounded this very simple matter with. When you say that someone called a book "fraudulent" when that someone did no such thing you are misquoting, misrepresenting. Accidentally, maybe: it happens. But when I picked Keith up he went all defensive and has consistently refused to admit that he ascribed a comment to a person who did not make that comment. You have the option of going back to the thread to check what I'm saying. You have the option of ignoring this. But what you seem to have done is to have relied on a sort of half-memory without checking back, then indulging in a sort of mythology of what happened in the thread. Everything I've said here is true, checkable and neutrally-put. If you and Keith wish to stand by the fiction you've both created around this, fine. We can make our own conclusions about your lack of integrity and honesty from that.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:49 AM

I have not changed a single word professor.


I quoted you verbatim.


As Omar Khayyam wrote:

The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel out half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM

Rag,
I know what you said, so does anyone else reading this or the other threads where this has been mentioned.
Like I said yesterday it is here for prosperity.

Yes it is, fortunately.
All your attempts to change what I said expose you as a despicable liar.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

I know what you said, so does anyone else reading this or the other threads where this has been mentioned.

Like I said yesterday it is here for prosperity.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:24 AM

"Operation Midland - Police inquiries closed with no charges being brought after it took 31 detectives 16 months to find absolutely nothing"
That's what I said - a cover up
""Potential" being the operative word. Article itself puts an estimated 750,000 males in the UK could possibly be interested in underaged sex."
Which is exatly what Keith said about Muslims and you have supported
Make up your mind - you can't reject one and accept the other
"irst paragraph of the article Jom states quite clearly that the man in question masqueraded as a Christian"
Many "Christians" pose as being such (Keith being a typical example), but sho no affinity to Christian beliefs - doesn't matter - they are officially Christians - they are certainly not Muslim.
The point of your argument is the dominance of Muslim Paedophelia
"All part and parcel of 1 above. Investigations wrapped up"
As above - the article points out that MI5 and the government were part of "not finding any evidence" on behaldf of leading members of the British establishments - what else were they going to claim?
NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here
Both ways again!!
THe 1970sw Paedophelia case was not part and parcel of the later case - to tally different and still unresolved and i=unpunished
The point of my putting these up was to show that paedophelia is a dominantly indigenous phenomenon and has nothing whatever to do with the Muslim religion or culture, as you are attempting to make it out to be by your use of a minute number of young criminals who have rejected their culture and adopted the British one.
Islam forbids sex outside marriage - these criminals openly indulge in it
Islam forbids alchohol - these criminals openly imbibe
THe actions of these (no more than a thousand) criminals spread all over Britain have nothing to do with being a Muslim.
Your attempting to claim otherwise makes you the racist you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:19 AM

Steve,
You declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent."

You are dishonestly partially quoting what I said to make a false case.

I declared the passage IN FULL. I gave both words used to rubbish those texts.
Referring to it later I conflated the two, BECAUSE THE FULL DISMISSAL HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
There was no deception and no need for deception because the article supported my case and dismissed yours.

But why are we here?
If you could challenge what I 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, obsessive men.
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

Rag,
He stated he BELIEVED this was the case, no if's, no but's, no maybe's.

That is deliberately and dishonestly wrong. A lie.
You say you have read the post. It was only three sentences.

The first sentence was a list of things I did not believe, which includes everything you accuse me of.
The third sentence just asks why anyone would not believe those well informed folk.
In the second I said I believed it, "but only because...."

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 20 Feb 17 - 08:37 PM - Good to see that your "links" are up to your usual standard Jom.


1: SCALIA COVER-UP

Operation Midland - Police inquiries closed with no charges being brought after it took 31 detectives 16 months to find absolutely nothing. The three "prime suspects" are now in the process of suing the Police.

2: ONE IN THIRTY FIVE BRITISH MEN POTENTIAL PAEDPHILES [sic]

"Potential" being the operative word. Article itself puts an estimated 750,000 males in the UK could possibly be interested in underaged sex. Of that estimated number they further estimated that 250,000 may actively pursue that interest. No idea what yardstick they used but one thing the article does not say about the research undertaken by the NCA was that the male population of the UK they looked at excluded Muslim males in the UK.

3: BRITAIN'S WORST PAEDOPHILE _ DEVOUT CHRISTIAN

First paragraph of the article Jom states quite clearly that the man in question masqueraded as a Christian to gain access to his victims. Look up what the word masquerade means.

4: BRISTOL PAEDOPHILES RAPE TODDLERS

Ah starting to get somewhere now - you provide details on one gang in one city - I have provided you with details based on hard convictions of eleven gangs in eleven cities.

5: MI5 and THATCHER COVERED UP PAEDOPHILIA IN HIGH PLACES

All part and parcel of 1 above. Investigations wrapped up, no substantive evidence found to back up any of the allegations made, no charges brought against multiple suspects named by both the police and the press, who are now suing the police.

6: HIGH UP PAEDOPHELIA - 1970s//80s

All part and parcel of 1 above. Investigations wrapped up, no substantive evidence found to back up any of the allegations made, no charges brought against multiple suspects named by both the police and the press, who are now suing the police.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:31 AM

Taliking about "picking up on" or pointing out transgressions Shaw. Why are you so one sided in doing so?

On the Wheatcroft thing - "Wheatcroft, note, Teribus, not "the Guardian." - Well Wheatcroft's article did appear in the Guardian didn't it? So according to Jim Carroll's logic the Guardian was/is responsible for what it prints - Wasn't that the tack he took when accusing Boris Johnston of being "racist"? Because he, as Editor of the Spectator, allowed certain articles written by others to be printed. If memory serves you didn't see fit to correct him. Could be because you are a two faced hypocrite who firmly believes in that good old "socialist" principle "One law for the goose another for the gander".

Your case on the thread when Wheatcroft was first brought up challenged Keith A's stance related to three points put by modern day historians specialising in the period of the First World War. You challenged the statement that they were of the opinion that, in comparison to the other combatant powers involved, the British Army was generally well led. To back up your case you mentioned two works, A.J.P. Taylor's book "The First World War: an Illustrated History" and Alan Clark's "Donkey's", Keith A, myself and others pointed out that both those works had been critically reviewed by historians at the time and both had been found wanting. (Clark himself admitted that the quote from which the title of his book was taken had been made up by himself - so that would account for the "largely fraudulent", i.e. based on a falsehood.) It was also pointed out to you that any historian writing about that period in the 1960s (Taylor & Clark) did not have access to vast amounts of material available to historians writing about the subject in the last thirty years. As you based your "case" on works that were regarded as being unrefined, uneducated, illiterate (all synonyms for the word "vulgar" used in it's intended sense) and largely fraudulent that was yet another WWI thread in which your "mobbing" of Keith A did not quite pan out as you had hoped.

Now when it comes to continually dredging up past transgressions as both you and Jom have done repeatedly whenever you feel you are losing an argument, should I start doing the same highlighting yours and his? Something to do with people, stones and glasshouses comes to mind because you have dropped some real bollocks, to use your expression, over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:41 AM

Dave the Gnome - 20 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM Comment was directed at Jom, who for some reason does think that this IS a "debating" forum - that is why the word debating was enclosed with inverted comas.

Just answering like - something none of you clowns ever do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:37 PM

Muslim Paedophelia in context
Jim Carroll
SCALIA COVER-UP
ONE IN THIRTY FIVE BRITISH MEN POTENTIAL PAEDPHILES
BRITAIN'S WORST PAEDOPHILE _ DEVOUT CHRISTIAN
BRISTOL PAEDOPHILES RAPE TODDLERS
MI5 and THATCHER COVERED UP PAEDOPHILIA IN HIGH PLACES
HIGH UP PAEDOPHELIA - 1970s//80s

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:40 PM

"Abduction of children, Rape of children, Torture of children, Sex trafficking of children."
Now an openly ranting racist - no wonder the B.N.P. expelled you for being a risk to their respectability
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:42 PM

On the Wheatcroft thing Shaw, the two historical works you were using to support your argument were described by Wheatcroft as being vulgar (That was A.J.P.Taylor's book) and fraudulent (That was Clark's). Personally I couldn't care a toss which was which, what was important was that it helped demolish your case and having done that all Shaw was left with was this petulant, pedantic bleat that has been going on now for years - what a sad b*****d you must be Shaw.

Cheers for the gratuitous insult.

However.

You may not "give a toss" which was which, but your mate Keith clearly did. He stated that "the Guardian" described both authors as "fraudulent," whereas in fact Wheatcroft (not "the Guardian") described Taylor's as rather vulgar and Clark's as largely fraudulent. Even you can't get that quite right, can you? Wheatcroft, note, Teribus, not "the Guardian." Wheatcroft did not describe Taylor's as fraudulent, contrary to what Keith asserted, an assertion which, after all this time, he still won't retract. It's pretty simple, Teribus, and it's staring you in the face, no matter how much you want to close ranks with Keith. Keith's defence of himself in this thread simply doesn't stand up. You pick the rest of us up on our transgressions, no matter how slight, yet you want to give Keith a bye on this blatant piece of dishonesty. And you call US a gang. Wow.

Er, and I didn't "have a case" in that thread, Teribus. Read it again. It's very simple. Keith misquoted from the Guardian. I take the Guardian every day (have done for forty years), I'd read the piece on the 9th that Keith quoted a week later. I suspected a misquote. I checked. I was right. I took him up. He denied it. He was lying. He had every chance to correct himself. He wouldn't. He neither confirmed nor denied any "case" because I didn't have one. All that is lies too. Go on, go back and check. You won't, because you don't "give a toss," in your words. You think that something that was wrong two years ago will somehow be all right today. Lies go away if you wait long enough, eh? You don't "give a toss" who's telling lies as long as it's someone on your side. I dare you. Go through the thing forensically, like you do with me and Jim. You won't like what you find. Though of course you've probably already found it. And just not sayin'. Because you don't "give a toss." For the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM

Are your "debating" skills not up to countering those facts?


But did you not say elsewhere, Teribus, that this is not a debating forum but a discussion forum? Why is it that, when it suits you, you introduce debating rules but when it goes against that, you state that this is not a debate?

Just wondering.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:33 PM

As you like "research" so much Teri the people and cases I mentioned have been much covered in the national media. Look them up.

Your attempts to sidetrack the main issue here won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:19 PM

So let me understand you Raggy, you just state that something is similar, without there being anything to substantiate it, and we, for some reason must be obliged to believe you. Sorry neither discussion or debate works like that. YOU said similar abuse didn't you? As it was you who set the bounds, the least you can do is put some effort into countering the evidence put before you. While you are at it best to remember it was those who conducted the enquiries into the Rotherham, Bristol and Oxford that called attention to the predominance among the perpetrators of their "cultural" background and the reason the abuse went on for as long as it did was due to institutionalised political correctness.

What similarities we are looking for are as follows:

Abduction of children
Rape of children
Torture of children
Sex trafficking of children.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:53 PM

"Quite a list - or is anybody about to deny it ever happened?"
Those tried and convicted for these crimes number in the hundreds - ot of a population of around a million and a half - some implant
In 2015, when these arguments started, there were 6,400 cases of pedophilia up to March,
As less than 100 of those were of Asian origin it must be assumed that the rest where Caucasian, overwhelmingly indigenous - paedophilia in Britain is overwhelmingly a White, Christian crime.
What is it about those statistics that disturbs you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:37 PM

The important phrase Teri was that the professor BELIEVED that Pakistani males had a culturally implanted tendency to abuse children.

He stated he BELIEVED this was the case, no if's, no but's, no maybe's.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but Jaconelli, Saville, Harris cannot be considered to be Pakistani males.

As for the numbers involved Jaconelli and Saville allegedly ran a ring for decades so who can say how many children, boys and girls were involved.

So unless your contacts are as wide in the Police service as you claim them to be in the Armed Forces you have absolutely no idea how many adults or children were involved.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:37 PM

What is it about presented recorded fact that disturbs you Jim? Are your "debating" skills not up to countering those facts?

Rotherham
Aylesbury
Banbury
Bristol
Derby
Halifax
Keighley
Oxford
Peterborough
Rochdale
Telford

Quite a list - or is anybody about to deny it ever happened? That it did not raise questions by those entrust with enquiries into the reasons the problem wasn't dealt with properly.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM

Not more racist and Islamophobic shite ???
There goes the forum under the jackboot of tese fascists
Is there an overseer in the house?
B.N,P. trolls have no place on this forum
Interesting comparison with the Labour Party thread about gangs though
Keith starts his Nuremberg rant about implants and soon they're all goose-stepping
Can Joe or somebody half decent please bring this Hatefest to a close please?
Jiim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:45 PM

Try perspective Raggy.

"white caucasian groups of men who have perpetrated similar abuse."

You did say similar abuse?? didn't you Rags.

Please indicate where any of those you mention groomed girls and pimped them round for years then trafficked them. I know Saville was a prodigious offender but his tally came nowhere near even the Rotherham Abuse Circle of over 1,400 victims.

In his original posts on the subject Keith A gave the statements made by prominent Pakistani and Muslim Leaders who in condemning the abuse mentioned a possible cultural link. Carroll and the rest deliberately ignored that Keith A was quoting the words of others and attributed those statements to Keith himself. A well worn tactic of his that no longer has any traction.

On the Wheatcroft thing Shaw, the two historical works you were using to support your argument were described by Wheatcroft as being vulgar (That was A.J.P.Taylor's book) and fraudulent (That was Clark's). Personally I couldn't care a toss which was which, what was important was that it helped demolish your case and having done that all Shaw was left with was this petulant, pedantic bleat that has been going on now for years - what a sad b*****d you must be Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:16 PM

Hmm Terikins,

I know you are fond of "research" would you like to conduct the same "research" into white caucasian groups of men who have perpetrated similar abuse.

Perhaps you would find information you didn't like.

Try starting with Peter Jaconelli, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris.

Just to give you something to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:14 PM

Well, Keith, as you repeatedly pontificate to us about quoting things, etc., I'll say it again. You declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Which it didn't. You put it in quotes, Keith. Quotes. Yet it wasn't the Guardian and no-one said his book was fraudulent, nothing like. And you've never retracted that severe terminological inexactitude. So, until you do, it would be sensible for you to desist from lecturing anyone else about their quoting I should think, hmmm? And just look at your reply at 12.14. No retraction, more lies. Tsk. Disreputable.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM

Culturally implanted to abuse what Raggy? Themselves? Children? Women?

If it is the latter then Keith A's beliefs were shared By Napier who saw it at first hand over 160 years ago.

The scale of crimes perpetrated on those young girls in Rotherham at the hands of twenty British-Pakistani males can only be described as horrendous - the Police started out with over 300 suspects. Are you trying to tell us Raggy that a culture that regards women as being chattels is not abusive? But what is even worse was the fact that these men got away with it for so long (1997 to 2013) due to the "institutionalised political correctness" on the part of South Yorkshire Police force and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council for their handling and covering up of the abuse.

An independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in the town, led by Professor Alexis Jay, was established in 2013 for Rotherham Council. The inquiry's initial report, published on 26 August 2014, condemned the failure of the authorities in Rotherham to act effectively against the abuse or even, in some cases, to acknowledge that it was taking place. The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men. Abuses described included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children.

On this horrendous crime on 16 February 2015 Labour Party leader Ed Miliband said that the Labour Party "did let people down in Rotherham, absolutely".

But that wasn't the only instance was it Raggy?

The Aylesbury child sex abuse ring was a group of six men of British Pakistani heritage who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged girls in the English town of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.

The Banbury child sex abuse ring was a group of seven men who committed serious sexual offences against under-aged girls in the English town of Banbury, Oxfordshire. Those convicted - Ahmed Hassan-Sule, Kagiso Manase, Takudzwa Hova, Mohamed Saleh, Said Saleh, Zsolt Szalontai, Shane Bonas.

The Bristol child sex abuse ring was a group of 13 Somali men who committed sexual offences against underage teenage girls in Bristol, in southwestern England. - The gang coerced the girls into sex with small payments of money, gifts of drugs and alcohol, and by persuading them that having sex with many men was part of "Somali 'culture and tradition'

The Derby child sex abuse ring was a group of thirteen men, most of whom were from Pakistani backgrounds who sexually abused up to a hundred girls in Derby, England.

The Halifax child sex abuse ring was a group of 15 British Pakistani men who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged girls in the English town of Halifax and city of Bradford, West Yorkshire.

The Keighley child sex abuse ring was a group of 12 Muslim men who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged white girls in the English town of Keighley and city of Bradford, West Yorkshire.

The Oxford child sex abuse ring was a group of seven men who, in May 2013, were convicted of sexual offences including rape, conspiracy to commit rape, arranging or facilitating child prostitution, trafficking for sexual exploitation, and procuring a miscarriage.

"In March 2015, a report revealed that more than 300 people, mostly girls from the city of Oxford, had been groomed and sexually exploited by such gangs in the area. It accused the Thames Valley Police, then led by Chief Constable Sara Thornton, of disbelieving the girls and failing to act on repeated calls for help, and Oxfordshire Social Services of failing to protect them despite compelling evidence they were in danger. The report also called for research into why a significant number of perpetrators of child grooming came from Muslim backgrounds.

Those responsible for perpetrating these crimes: Mohammed Karrar (38) & Bassam Karrar (33) and Akhtar Dogar (32) & Anjum Dogar (31) with three other men: Kamar Jamil, 27, Assad Hussain, 32, and Zeeshan Ahmed, 27. Five were British Pakistani and two, the Karrar brothers, of Eritrean heritage.

The Peterborough sex abuse case involved 10 men of Pakistani, Iraqi Kurdish, Czech and Slovak Roma heritage who committed sexual offences against under-aged girls, some as young as 12, in the English city of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire.

The Rochdale child sex abuse ring involved under-age teenage girls in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, England. Twelve men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child, on 8 May 2012. The men were British Pakistanis except for one Afghani which led to discussion on whether the failure to investigate them was linked to the authorities' fear of being accused of racism.

The Telford child sex abuse ring was a group of seven men, mainly British Pakistanis who were found guilty of sexual offences against four teenage girls, aged 13 to 16. The offences occurred between 2007 and 2009 in Telford, England.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

"I have no reason to disbelieve all those people."
What people - where are their quotes
If yoyu believe all male Pakistanis are prone to ral[ping children - you are a raving racist - even if Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu had sung it as a chorus
Claiming such a thing puts you on par with the Auschwitz executioners - such things gets petrol poured through letter-boxes.
Take your scummy racism off this forum
As Raggy said, THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING YOUR EXTREME RACISM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:47 PM

I have no reason to disbelieve all those people.
Do you?

It is their opinion and not mine. I know nothing about that culture.

I believe them as I would believe a doctor's diagnosis or a meteorologist's weather forecast.
They are in a position to know. I am not.
It is their opinion, not mine.
I just need a reason not to believe.
What is yours?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

Thank you Keith for confirming that you believe Pakistani males are all culturally implanted to abuse.

I really could not have any clearer than your last post.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM

Rag, I said I believed it, but only because all those Left Wingers were adamant it was the case.
Read the whole post and read it in the context of the previous posts in that thread from six years ago.

You people are so desperate to make this thread about me that you have to go back six years and still come up with nothing!

Steve,
You mean like you did when you declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent?" Which it didn't?

I had already quoted both the actual words used to rubbish the books, so it was no deception to lump them together when referring to it again.

The FACT is that both books were rubbished.
The FACT is that in rubbishing them he rubbished your case and supported mine.
The FACT is I had no need to misquote. He was on my side and rubbished your case.
You are so desperate to make this thread about me that you have to go back over two years and still come up with nothing!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

"If it does, please quote it."
You have been given the blatantly racist poster twice
Is illitracy yet another of your qualities
Your entire response is to ignore facts
Any progress on thoe quotes about imlantes yet?
No?
Then you lied
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

"Yes, so when claiming someone has said something, you should be able to quote it.
I always do."

You mean like you did when you declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent?" Which it didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:40 AM

Lets have a look at exactly what you posted;

"Don I do now "believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally planted tendency"

The first phrase makes it abundantly clear you believe this, no if's, no but's, no maybe's.

"Don I do now"

Quite clear, quite unequivocal.

Kept for prosperity on the Internet for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM

Rag,
I think you will find that Jim has quoted with the thread name, posters name, time and date for all to see.

Yes, and if you read it you will see that the suggestion that it was the British Pakistani culture that led to the abuse came not from me but from a number of Left Wing people (though not extreme Left Wing like you and Jim.)
Most were from that culture, and all had close links.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

Jim,
Any party who has a racist policy, who attracts Britain;'s lunatic fringe and who settles leadership contests by PUNCH-UPS is a standing joke - certainly not a serious party

I agree, but UKIP does not have a racist policy.
If it does, please quote it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:47 AM

Jim's Link

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:32 AM

Incidentally - the numerical rise in the Ukip vote mirrors exactly the decline of the BNP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:26 AM

"Jim, your piece on that election was written by a Lib Dem."
It doesn't matter who wrote it, and unless you claim they are lying the figures quoted are official
Ukip's vote may have risen numerically, as has all party's but their share of the vote has steadily declined as the chart shows
The fact that they have lost the only Member of Parliament is indicative of that decline and the fact they have no MPs makes them a super-fringe party on par with the Monster Raving Loony Party
As Ukip was a one-policy Party , since Brexit and the Government's statement that it will act on immigration, it has no reason for existence
Any party who has a racist policy, who attracts Britain;'s lunatic fringe and who settles leadership contests by PUNCH-UPS is a standing joke - certainly not a serious party
Can't blue clickie this one but a nice summing up of Ukip's approach to violence and crime
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-knowingly-let-violent-criminals-and-racists-stand-for-election-a6866776.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:52 AM

I think you will find that Jim has quoted with the thread name, posters name, time and date for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:46 AM

Rag,
One of the "problems" about posting on a forum like Mudcat is that your posts are there for all to see.

Yes, so when claiming someone has said something, you should be able to quote it.
I always do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:45 AM

"a female Labour MP"

Ann Cryer.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:40 AM

One of the "problems" about posting on a forum like Mudcat is that your posts are there for all to see.

I suspect that some contributors make copies of contentious posts so that if the thread is deleted they still have the reference.

Thus one cannot say at a later date "I did not say that"

It is there for posterity, it is how we will be remembered.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:36 AM

Jim, your piece on that election was written by a Lib Dem.

Here is the BBC on it.

"UKIP leader Nigel Farage hailed "breakthroughs" following a series of gains made by his party during the UK-wide local and assembly elections.
After 113 results out of 124 councils, UKIP has 55 seats so far, a gain of 26.
It won six seats on Thurrock Council and just missed out on being the largest party by a single vote.
Ex-Tory MPs Neil Hamilton and Mark Reckless were among seven gains on the Welsh Assembly, and UKIP came second in two Westminster by-elections.
It was beaten by Labour in Ogmore, in South Wales, and Sheffield Brightside in South Yorkshire.
But it gained two seats on the London Assembly, for David Kurten and mayoral candidate Peter Whittle, from the London-wide top-up list, where it came fourth with 171,069 votes, its best performance in London for some years."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36219659

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

Jim,
You are lying - but you are free to show me wrong by producing one single statement

I do not lie Jim.
I quoted Safique Khan, Lord Ahmed and Yasmin Alinhai-Brown who are all of that culture and Left Wing.
Also Jack Straw and a female Labour MP who both had large communities in their constituencies.

The chart you were given shows that the Ukip vote actually declined in the 1916 election and it has no MPs - it is a friing party whose fringe is shortened
'YR 'TIS AGAIN - A STEADY DECLINE IN THE SHARE OF THE VOTES

No. Not a "steady decline."
Up to that point their vote had been steadily rising, and they actually gained seats in that election anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:18 AM

"came not from me but from a number of Left Wing people"
You are lying - but you are free to show me wrong by producing one single statement - so far you have refused
It doesn't make any difference who said it - it is an extremely racist statement and anybody who believes it is an extreme racist.
Anyway - where are those quotes - no? - then you are a proven extremist.
The chart you were given shows that the Ukip vote actually declined in the 1916 election and it has no MPs - it is a friing party whose fringe is shortened
'YR 'TIS AGAIN - A STEADY DECLINE IN THE SHARE OF THE VOTES
Don't forget those quotes now!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:56 AM

Yep It increased from one to no M.P.s in the last election

Yep, its share of the vote increased dramatically and overtook the Lib Dems, making it the third party.
Deny that Jim? Read that Guardian piece I linked to for confirmation that you were wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:53 AM

Jim, the suggestion that it was the British Pakistani culture that led to the abuse came not from me but from a number of Left Wing people, though not extreme Left Wing like you.
Most were from that culture, and all had close links.

I know nothing about it that culture, but I do know that we are all implanted, to some extent, with our culture.
(I would not use that word but that was how the question was put to me.)

Reporting that Left Wing view hardly makes me an extremist, and I am not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:10 AM

"About the most idiotic stance I have ever heard."
It's idiotic to claim you don't support a party than break your neck to prove you do.
"You see Jim you can come out with totally unsubstantiated slurs and accusations"
I provide back up to my claims - you refuse to do so
You pontificate and then try to bully your contractions through
Even your claims, when actually lifted from genuine information are edited to disguise their true purpose - as with your latest efforts in Bevin, Attlee and nuclear power
About the most dishonest stance I have ever come across
"I am probably the most A-political person on this forum."
And it shows
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM

Not forgetting
SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS BRITAIN ABROAD AND IS LOYAL TO FELLOW RIGHT-WINGERS
AND FOREVER ON THE UP AND UP
Maybe it's all this non-support you've been giving them - waddya think??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:59 AM

"I have no intentions in entering into a dialogue with someone who is supporting a party he doesn't support - I think that sort of madness might be infectious." - Jim Carroll

About the most idiotic stance I have ever heard. It is also very demonstrative of Jim's greatest failing when it comes to any discussion.

To illustrate this point

Jim Carroll states some point of view on a political party or event. What he states is viewed by someone else as being incorrect and that person responds to Jim's post pointing out the errors and details what they think is the real and factual case. Jim then flies into a rage, accuses whoever of being every sort ".....ist" under the Sun, guilty of every "...ism" imaginable with the added certainty that they must be the most fervent supporter of the party and ideology he is criticising - which of course is "complete and utter" bollocks to use Shaw's expression (Please note the expression of Shaw's that I am referring to is the word "Bollocks" - the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of Jim Carroll's debating style)

You see Jim you can come out with totally unsubstantiated slurs and accusations aimed at UKIP, or any other party, and I can criticise you for doing so without being a supporter of that party. My motivation for drawing your attention to the errors in your statement being simply to establish what the real facts of the matter are. When it comes to politics on this forum I have very little respect for ANY politician or any political party. I am probably the most A-political person on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:54 AM

"I do insist I am not an extremist, and await an example of extremism from me."
Anybody who describes all make Pakistanis as being implanted to rape underage women is as extreme as a bag of frogs
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.
Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?"
As I said - extreme as a bag of frogs
"No it never has. Remind us of this proof."
Just have Keith - don't staryt pretending you haven't been given it again Keith - old trick of yours
"Their vote has steadily increased."
Yep It increased from one to no M.P.s in the last election
A SERIOUS PARTY
A RESPONSIBLE PARTY

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:28 AM

Jim,
Ukip's racism has been debated and proved over and over again

No it never has. Remind us of this proof.
You linked to an article where some people claimed a poster was racist.
The police decided it was not and took no action.

I do insist I am not an extremist, and await an example of extremism from me.

There is no obvious increase in their popularity, no sign that they have made any grounds as a party,

Admit you are wrong about that Jim.
Their vote has steadily increased.
In the general election Ukip came second in 118 of the 650 parliamentary seats.
They had more support than the Lib Dems and half Labour's vote.
"Overall, Ukip secured 12.6% of the vote, an increase of 9.5 percentage points from the 2010 election, the largest of any major party and more than three times the size of the SNP's improvement."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/margate-ukip-greens-electoral-reform-farage

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:43 AM

"How on earth can someone who holds such sensible and informative views on folk music, write such drivel on politics?"
Probably the same way somebody who declares himself a "socialist" can express such contempt for the left and everything it stands for.
Why not try answering the points rather than indulging in cowardly stone-throwing from the sidelines.
Feel free to expose my arguments as "drivel" any time you feel up to it - but don't leave it too long - none of us are getting any younger
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM

How on earth can someone who holds such sensible and informative views on folk music, write such drivel on politics?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:44 AM

I have no intentions in entering into a dialogue with someone who is supporting a party he doesn't support - I think that sort of madness might be infectious.
No more dialogues Keith
Ukip's racism has been debated and proved over and over again - his posters, his campaign message, his taking up where Powell and B.N.P. left off - his party's attraction for the racist nutters of society - all old ground.
"Can you give an example of them doing that, "
YES
I won't raise your racist smear about "cultural implants" or Jewish parliamentary 'silence on antisemitim, or Irish children brainwashed to hate Britain" here, but I am happy to do so if you insist your not an extremist.
Petrhaps I won't - as I said, no more dialogues for "love of the party" (or in our case, 'forum@ eh Keith
But as I have said "once stated publicly, forever written in stone".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:01 AM

Jim,
Ukip has always campaigned on a racist ticket - they took up where Powell
and B.N.P. left off

You make the claim but can not back it with a single fact.
Where is your evidence of racism?

By playing on people's Xenophobia, Brexit helped to swing the vote

Can you give an example of them doing that, or is it just another baseless smear?

There is no obvious increase in their popularity, no sign that they have made any grounds as a party,

Yes there is. Their vote has steadily increased.
In the general election Ukip came second in 118 of the 650 parliamentary seats.
They had more support than the Lib Dems and half Labour's vote.
"Overall, Ukip secured 12.6% of the vote, an increase of 9.5 percentage points from the 2010 election, the largest of any major party and more than three times the size of the SNP's improvement."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/margate-ukip-greens-electoral-reform-farage

You'll be telling us your not an extremist next

I am not an extremist.
You will find no extreme view in any post of mine, but do try to prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:40 AM

"How little you know or understand Jim.
You must be in a constant state of confusion."
Don'y you start hiding your ignorance behind defensive insults Keith - one ignorant talking-down o-brain is enough and you certainly have no grounds to start
Ukip has always campaigned on a racist ticket - they took up where Powell
and B.N.P. left off
Ukip was an element in winning (funny how reisking the economy and the future of the British people can bed described that way) Brexit.
By playing on people's Xenophobia, Brexit helped to swing the vote - they won nothing.
There is no obvious increase in their popularity, no sign that they have made any grounds as a party, they have no policy beyond their hate stirring
Their antics as an organisation, their attraction for extremist loonies, their public fisticuffs, their inand about turn leadership, the clownish behaviour of their leading figures....... - a serious contender - I don't think so.
Come out from bihnd your insulting bluster and tell us why anybody would support this party you don't support (or claim not to)
They are so electable even you don't have the bottle to admit your support for them, and who can blame you
You've broken your neck trying to prove that a decent political party is antisemitic (and failed miserably) and now you are supporting a party (you don't support!!) that has a history of racism and hate stirring against the most desperately needy members of humanity.
You'll be telling us your not an extremist next
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:45 PM

Oh dear Shaw a thread where you have run out of steam and cannot resort to meaningless waffle - Otherwise recognised as "Complete and utter" bollocks, to use your expression to divert everybody's attention ( Please note the expression of Shaw's that I am referring to is the word "Bollocks" - the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of what Steve Shaw normally writes on any question under the Sun).

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:22 PM

Why don't you just evaporate, Keith? The word "tiresome" was invented just for you. Just toddle off and enjoy life.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:29 PM

Jim,
And led Britain out of the EU - that's how principled a party they are - get people to vote for them and destroy the thing they voted for.
People who voted for EU candidates presumeably believed in the EU otherwise they wouldn't have bothered voting.

How little you know or understand Jim.
You must be in a constant state of confusion.
UKIP has ALWAYS campaigned to get us out, and that was how they won the last EU election and the referendum.

But for all the fears stirred up by the establishment the referendum would have been even more clear cut. They almost persuaded me to vote against.

It is a one shot party based on a racist campagn to get the UK out of Europe

They deny racism, and in the other threads none of you could identify any racism in their publications.
If there is nothing there, how do you know they are racist?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:56 AM

A follow up point about Ukip
It is a one shot party based on a racist campagn to get the UK out of Europe
Now that Britain is out and Ukip has no MPs, it has no role whatever nationally - as marginal as that
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:27 AM

I was just going to post a message to Dave as he's up in the Dales to try Dent. That's nearly on topic, innit! Whaddam I like!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

I should point out (not that it bothers me one iota) that people are not keeping on-topic.

Some of these people are the very same ones who complain about off topic postings.

Just saying like.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

"I am no supporter, but UKIP actually beat all the other parties in the 2014 EU election."
And led Britain out of the EU - that's how principled a party they are - get people to vote for them and destroy the thing they voted for.
People who voted for EU candidates presumeably believed in the EU otherwise they wouldn't have bothered voting.
The candidates they voted for then set about destroying their objective - what kind of politics is that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:52 AM

"What "insecurity" Jom? "
Enough !!
I'm tired of these threads being turned into personal slanging matches, mainly through your talking down to everybody who disagrees with you but only you start any posting with insulting behaviour - interminably
Now you seem to have been joined by another acolyte
If you can't take part in s discussion by referring to people by their chosen titles and stoop referring to them as "a pack", I suggest you take your mindless behaviour elsewhere and let the rest of us discuss things in an adult manner
I really have had a bellyful of threads being fucked up by brutish bad manners
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM

Jim,
It's eternal leadership idiocies, resignations, foot-in-mouths and generaal clownish displays and its attraction for the lunatic fringe of British politics makes it the laughing stock that it is - as you say, "some fringe".

You have just described the Labour Party, not UKIP Jim!

I am no supporter, but UKIP actually beat all the other parties in the 2014 EU election.
Some fringe.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Iains
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:36 PM

Teribus. Insecurity is the new buzzword for the pack. I think they need to ask Akela what it means.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM

What "insecurity" Jom? What on earth have I got to feel insecure about?

Certainly nothing connected with anything you might try to put up by way of argument.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 10:57 AM

"I'm persistent certainly Jom"
in being an ugly-minded insecure lout - if that's what you mean
Eaxch time you post is a reminder of where you stand in the 'pecking order'
Your folks must be very proud of what you've turned into
Did you notice - youalways throw your toys out of the pram when you're stuck?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 10:49 AM

I'm persistent certainly Jom, especially when I have to wade through the ill-informed, bigoted, biased and intolerant ramblings that your posts represent.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

"Jom Cattoll "
And your persistent, ill brought up, unimaginative loutishness makes you a mindless bully
Please go and play and let the adults argue it out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:27 AM

Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice

None so blind, T; none so blind......

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:23 AM

"Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice." ― Michael Crichton, State of Fear

Which makes you Jom Cattoll the most prejudiced person on this forum.

On the application of reasoning and logic with respect to the employment/unemployment thing. The UK has consistently had a higher rate of employment than the EU and a lower rate of unemployment than the EU since 2005 so how if employment opportunities are lower in the EU does being a member state help British citizens find work? If unemployment is higher in the EU how does being a member state help British citizens find work? Answer to both is - IT DOESN'T

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

Jim:
I heve no idea what the postition will be as far as Brits already living abroad - I do know that the door will have closed to future workers seeking employment.
It's amazing what you 'know' when the negotiations have yet to take place.

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned 'logic' alone. For a reasoned debate both logic and facts are needed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM

"Firstly, no decision has yet been made about what will happen to ex-pats in Europe, or EC citizens in UK. "
Yes, lets' take it jlogically
The benefits of being aan EU member have been put at risk and there is no reason that Britain should retain them when they become just another country
I heve no idea what the postition will be as far as Brits already living abroad - I do know that the door will have closed to future workers seeking employment.
You choose not to mention the decade-long destabilisation the economy - not part of your logic, apparently
"Jom,"
You seem to have as little belief in your own arguments as anybody else has - otherwise, why would you continue to hide behind your bullying bluster?
Europe faces six elections this year- all contested by neo-fascist parties opposing membership of the EU - Austria was a near-miss, LePen is a possibility and is almost certainly in cahoots with Trump already, the rest will all have taken heart from
Ukip has one MP and no policy beyond stopping immigrants - it's life-blood is right-wing populism
It's eternal leadership idiocies, resignations, foot-in-mouths and generaal clownish displays and its attraction for the lunatic fringe of British politics makes it the laughing stock that it is - as you say, "some fringe".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Iains
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:50 AM

Steve the man can say whatever he wants. The problem is that he is so detested that remainders are likely to desert in droves as soon as he babbles on about another referendum and remaining. He is, to quote a well used phrase:- "The turd in the punchbowl"

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

Blair may not be much help, but I'd like to see you challenge the rationality of what he's saying. And please don't give me that "undemocratic" guff. It's undemocratic to say that a man shouldn't be saying what he thinks. That might change, of course, when the Trumps, Le Pens, Wilders and Farages of this world gain the ascendancy.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:37 AM

The 'a' is optional, Stanron. And you don't agree with me because the expression is a sarcastic one, indicating that what I've just said Is the opposite of what I really think. Do go and look things up before putting your foot in it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Iains
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:20 AM

I would say that Blair coming back to reinvigorate the "remainders" has to be the biggest own goal of all time for them. Never in the field of human conflict has a man generated so much contempt. I do like the comments section in the daily wail about him- there are some real classics. Good old Guido Fawkes just loves the man too.

https://order-order.com/2017/02/17/labour-condemn-blairs-contempt-democracy/#disqus_thread

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM

Steve Shaw wrote: I should coco!

Put an 'a' on the end of that and I'd agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:51 AM

I'd say that the people clutching at straws here are those whining about things that have not happened - "invented reality" - oh yes Shaw worry, "the sky is falling".

As nothing compared to your invented reality that we are going to be a great trading nation once again, that other countries will come running into our arms, that we will once again "get back control" (tell it to the multinationals!). The country is leaving the EU precisely because your side peddled a pack of lies about an invented reality.

"Because of Brexit and Trump, the EU is in danger of collapse."

As you seem to have cast yourself as the forum's expert on talking bollocks,

Well I thought you'd be over the moon about the prospect of an EU collapse as you've never said one good word about it. But here you are trying to soothe us by saying that talk of its collapse is bollocks. Why would that be, I wonder? I'll tell you why. Because you know damn well that an uncontrolled, chaotic collapse of the EU (no other kind would be possible) would pitch the world into severe danger. All those fascists, including Putin, are waiting in the wings, aren't they, and Mr "America First" won't have a clue how to handle it except for becoming more and more isolationist and protectionist. Just him and China. Whoop-de-doo!

Take a bloody good look at dissatisfaction with the EU within the European member states Shaw and you will find that it is widespread, well established and was in existence long before Brexit and long before Donald Trump won the 2016 US Presidential election.

Indeed, but the game has changed. All that long-term dissatisfaction is now seasoned with a heavy dose of waiting-in-the-wings fascism thinly disguised as populism. You've defeated your own argument by pointing to that dissatisfaction. With the help of the fascist threat, the EU could be terminally undermined.

You mention Le Pen. The Political Party she leads was founded when? It was formerly led by who - Her father wasn't it? And he was elected leader of it WHEN**?

Similarly Geerd Wilders**

** As Shaw will not answer questions asked. In the case of Jean-Marie Le Pen his National Party was formed by him in 1972 the year BEFORE the UK joined the EU. While Wilders formed his Party in 2004

Indeed. But these threats have changed from marginal to mainstream. Trump, Le Pen, Farage and Wilders are no longer clowns on the sidelines almost but not quite as entertaining as Screaming Lord Sutch. As you gleefully point out in the case of Farage, these people are gaining millions of votes. No threat? Brave new world for little England? I should coco!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

"The UK employment rate has been higher than the EU average every year since 2005."
At present there are 1.2 million British people working in Europe; at least 30,000 of them are drawing unemployment benefit (one of the perks of membership that stands to be lost).
Are you seriously suggesting that the British economy can stand the strain of them having to return?

Let's take that logically (if that's possible).
Firstly, no decision has yet been made about what will happen to ex-pats in Europe, or EC citizens in UK. It may be that this will continue as at present, but with reduced ability for more people to move freely to find work (or go on the dole).
Secondly, if the system did require a wholesale relocation of workers to their home countries then, according to the figures you quote, we would receive 1.2 million people who have shown themselves willing and able to work and 30,000 people who currently claim unemployment benefit. That's an unemployment percentage of 2.5%. That should improve our employment statistics.
Unless of course you believe that all the ex-pats will be forced to return, but all the EC workers currently here will remain here.

The sky is not falling, but feel free to continue your Chicken Little impersonation.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:49 AM

"the fringe nature of Ukip"

Some fringe Jom, in the last UK General Election only two political parties, the Conservatives and Labour, succeeded in getting more votes than UKIP.

"Because of Brexit and Trump, the EU is in danger of collapse."

That was Shaw's statement and that is the "Complete and utter bollocks" I challenged him on.

Won't really bother with yours as you are only spouting your "same old usual bollocks"

The EU's common currency, the Euro, was rushed into being against the specific advice of the man who came up with the idea, who insisted that a common currency could only be introduced after full fiscal and political union had been achieved. The EU Commission ignored him in order to push their own ideological goals and the result has been that they have destroyed the economies of the southern/Mediterranean member states - Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal.

Take a look at the countries that have said "NO" to EU diktat in the past - you will not find the UK among them. The Eurosceptic parties have grown in popularity because the failings of the EU have become increasingly more apparent - no other reason.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:38 AM

"long before Donald Trump won the 2016 US Presidential election. "
Of course the problem parties have existed long before Trump - that is not the point
Up to recently they have been regarded as fringe parties and have appealed ony to the extreme - the rejection of BNP and the fringe nature of Ukip are typical of how they were regarded
The possibilities of them being taken seriously have accelerated with the advent of the Brexit mob and the election of Trump due to the use of scapegoat populism - the blaming of immigrants and refugees for the nation's problems.
Trump has been quick to take advantage of the tactic - he has latched on to Russia for support, LePen has been photographed at Trump Tower and yesterday he tore up the One State solution to win over Netunyahu as a supporter - right-wing extremists all.
The extreme right are coming into their own - one is in the White House (and the British PM was first to genuflect and kiss his arse).
Trump and Brexit have turned a distant threat into possibility.
Now for the stream of old usual insecure abuse from Teribus - off you go laddie!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:12 AM

Ehmmmm, I'd say that the people clutching at straws here are those whining about things that have not happened - "invented reality" - oh yes Shaw worry, "the sky is falling".

"Because of Brexit and Trump, the EU is in danger of collapse."

As you seem to have cast yourself as the forum's expert on talking bollocks, I take it that quoted above is merely one of your finer examples which I suppose would fall under the classification of "Complete and utter" bollocks.

Now should I be bothered to review your position on Brexit on the appropriate threads, would I find a Shaw predicting catastrophe for the UK and descriptions of the EU ever moving forward to the sunny uplands of economic success, prosperity and attainment of the "socialist" Utopia?

Take a bloody good look at dissatisfaction with the EU within the European member states Shaw and you will find that it is widespread, well established and was in existence long before Brexit and long before Donald Trump won the 2016 US Presidential election.

You mention Le Pen. The Political Party she leads was founded when? It was formerly led by who - Her father wasn't it? And he was elected leader of it WHEN**?

Similarly Geerd Wilders**

** As Shaw will not answer questions asked. In the case of Jean-Marie Le Pen his National Party was formed by him in 1972 the year BEFORE the UK joined the EU. While Wilders formed his Party in 2004

If the EU is under threat it is because of it's own actions, it's monstrous corruption, inefficiency and slavish adherence to ideology irrespective of the problems being faced and sage advice given.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 08:09 PM

This supposed rise in "fascism" ...."democracy" as we know it has not been destroyed and at the moment is under no threat whatsoever.

Wow, I see that 1930s complacency never died!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:41 PM

This supposed rise in "fascism"...what do you think has caused it?

Fascists, perhaps? "Alternative facts"? Persons of yours and Trump's and LePen's and Farage's ilk?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:38 PM

You're struggling. Clutching at straws. I hope you saw Trump on the telly tonight in his news conference. Watch that, watch him attack the judges, watch him attack the media, watch him lie about Russia - then tell me again that democracy isn't under threat. Watch the rise of people like Wilders and Le Pen. You ok with all that? Well I'm bloody not. Because of Brexit and Trump, the EU is in danger of collapse. Hurrah, I hear you shout. But that collapse will fuel years of economic crisis and will give succour to the types of populists/fascists that, at the very best, I never hear you condemning. Well you and I will be long gone. Dunno about you, but I'm a dad and a grandad.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM

This supposed rise in "fascism" in Europe and in the US Shaw, what do you think has caused it?

The undoubted and outstandingly successful governance of the countries involved by the liberal socialist left?

As far as I am aware "democracy" as we know it has not been destroyed and at the moment is under no threat whatsoever.

If you think the EU is doomed and about to suffer an uncontrolled meltdown why on God's earth do you advocate that we should remain a part of something so fragile and unstable?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:06 PM

Baling out Greece is the least of anyone's worries at the moment. You may not have noticed it, but the rise of populism/fascism in Europe and the US (the two phenomena are inextricably intertwined) are not just threatening the existence of the EU (which you and your little cabal here are crowing about), but of democracy itself. All we need is an unseemly, uncontrolled collapse of the EU, the inevitable economic meltdown in Europe to follow and a fascist or three in power. You seem happy to see Europe set back a hundred years. And I thought you liked history.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

" Jom"
Latest display from of persuasive argument – from this thread alone – so far - no doubt much more to come

Best stick to your wild flowers and your diet.

Only to you Stu, only to you.

Priceless Raggy - f**kin' priceless
Stick to orchids pal - you know S.F.A. about submarines.
And no Raggy unlike you I do not believe everything I read in the Press.

Well Stu at least you seem to realise that the point Raggytush was trying to make was a load of shit.

What part of "the Vanguard Class of nuclear missile carrying submarines is unaffected" did you fail to understand?

Do you do that "veracity check" before or after you post complete and utter codswallop Raggers? Applied to this thread it would appear that you only do your checking after the event of you going into print and making a complete and utter arse of yourself.

Ah Raggyarse, paying far too much attention to Jom I see - you shouldn't because off traditional music he's not really all that reliable.

What's the matter Raggedarse plain English comprehension too difficult for you, or are you catching Jom's dyslexia - never thought it was contagious. What is it about you Raggy that compels you to react to every post by trying to make some pathetic smart-arse remark that never quite gets there but just merely succeeds in you jamming both your feet firmly in your mouth - here is a classic example:

"Delude yourselves all you want, but the performance figures all stack up against you. "
Apples and oranges
Comparing a small relatively wealthy island with most of a continent which is mainly rural and virtually devoid of industry it utter nonsense
And none of you have responded to the almost certain losses of jobs that will occur - despite your blustering insecurity
You never learn, do you?
Bullying idiot
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 02:13 PM

Oh dear Shaw and Jom are being routed by commentators turning their own logic and arguments against them.

Delude yourselves all you want, but the performance figures all stack up against you. Merkel and Germany at the moment are hoping and praying that Greece will not give the Eurozone another hit, as at the moment Germany cannot afford to bail them out.

Tell me Jom are you saying that prior to 1973 no UK citizens worked in Europe? Or elsewhere in the world for that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

"The UK employment rate has been higher than the EU average every year since 2005."
At present there are 1.2 million British people working in Europe; at least 30,000 of them are drawing unemployment benefit (one of the perks of membership that stands to be lost).
Are you seriously suggesting that the British economy can stand the strain of them having to return?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 09:00 AM

Well, Iains and Stanron, Wilders and Le Pen are both anti-EU fascists. Italy is out of love with the EU too. Merkel may well lose her grip. Then of course there's Putin. You may be feeling prematurely triumphalist about all that. As for me, I'm just recalling what Europe was like before we had the fully-fledged EU, when we had an economic crisis (inevitable again if the EU implodes) and when we had a few fascists at the helm. Anyone for Salazar, the Greek colonels, Franco...and Hitler? Do you think Mr "America first" will jump in to save us?

There will be no "good deals" for us. We're stuffed whatever happens. And we are the major contributor to that. Your days of hope are days of cloud cuckoos.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 08:15 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

"So if we have so little to sell to the EU, why do we need access to their market?"
Because being a member of the EU brings more than an out let for goods - a source of work for the unemployed Britain cannot cope with for a start

That's a classic!
According to the EU (I hope you accept their statistics)The UK employment rate has been higher than the EU average every year since 2005. How continuing to be a member of a group with lower percentage employment than us will help our unemployed I fail to see. Table here
And for percentage employed, never below 7th place on that table.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Iains
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 07:22 AM

Stanron. +100

Not forgetting of course: Geert Wilders, a Eurosceptic, taking a lead in the polls, Greek rumours of adopting the US$, Marine Le Pen becoming more popular by the moment.

Seems the wheels on the bus are not entirely turning with the expected degree of precision. In fact they are in danger of falling off.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM

A lovely, well made, set of points Steve. Lots of other members see the advantages of leaving the EU suggesting that the UK is not all that daft in getting out first. We were first with steam trains, first with the jet engine and first out of the economical and political disaster that is the EU. Same old same old. Other countries wanting the same deal would have to be able to offer the same levels of financial contribution and defence contribution. The only one that comes near is France and if France leaves at least the EU will be able to stop moving it's Parliament back and forward between two different places every month. Stuffed? Stuffed with hope and opportunity perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

"So if we have so little to sell to the EU, why do we need access to their market?"
Because being a member of the EU brings more than an out let for goods - a source of work for the unemployed Britain cannot cope with for a start
The present situation in our non-existent manufacturing industry cannot continue indefinitely - a revival of shipbuilding has been a dream for over a decade - planning for future expansion has to be a vital factor.
As little as we have to offer, we have to sell somewhere - Europe is the most convenient and it is also a rout to beyond.
Mayfly and her acolytes seem to be dreaming of a future with the States under a totally unstable President - hence here being to being prepared to drop her national knickers so quickly - putting all your eggs in one rotten basket.
Brexit was sold on a Xenophobic ticket - even if it were morally acceptable, it is not enough reason to take such a massive leap in the dark.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:00 AM

You are not confronting the reality, Nigel. Brexit, Trump and the extreme right in the Netherlands and France are all putting the EU under siege. There are also threats to the stability of the EU coming from Germany, the Czech Republic and Italy. 27 countries are watching like hawks to see what "deal" we get. A good number of them are very likely to want to get out of the EU on similar terms if we get any untoward favours. We are not getting a good deal, end of. Because of Trump, the world is going to be an unstable and unpredictable place in the two years of our negotiations. We are well and truly stuffed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

No larger than anywhere else and as Britain has little to sell the traffic can be only one way due to our lack of industries - that's going to sort out our economy to no end, isn't it.
It's nonsense to suggest that Britain would cease to trade with Europe - do you honestly believe British firms would stand for such a move?
So if we have so little to sell to the EU, why do we need access to their market?
If they have so much to sell to us, they need access to our market, and, as such, access to their market would be a suitable quid pro quo.
Asking whether the British firms would stand for it is pointless. It is highly unlikely that it will ever happen because, under the same argument, the EU firms would not stand for it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

"A large market for its businesses"
No larger than anywhere else and as Britain has little to sell the traffic can be only one way due to our lack of industries - that's going to sort out our economy to no end, isn't it.
It's nonsense to suggest that Britain would cease to trade with Europe - do you honestly believe British firms would stand for such a move?
All that would happen is that we would have thrown away the benefits of membership - free movement of labour, unhindered border crossings....
The panic that is now taking place in Norther Ireland, the threat to the Peace Process and the possible effect on trade is indicative of the damage that has already been done and the shambles that are the negotiatuions to leave haven't even begun.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:47 AM

I repeat - there is no reason why the E.U. should grant privileges to a non - member State - why should it - what has Britain to offer in return?
A large market for its businesses. You continually ignore the balance of payments between UK & EU (the rest of).
If the EU does not arrange suitable terms, it would be like a profitable pub deciding to ban all its highest spending customers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 10:32 PM

Think I heard that Trump was humming This the other day....

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:16 PM

Nuclear protection, if it were available, would be welcome. But it doesn't exist - all we've got are nuclear weapons, which are the reverse.

Up till now the main danger from the existence has been of some kind of accident or of a fatal misunderstanding, since no sane leader would launch a nuclear war. The trouble now is that the sanity of the leader with the largest nuclear arsenal is very questionable indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 12:15 PM

"That statement appears to be about changes that have already been "brought", and seems to be a definitive statement."
It seems quite likely Nigel
Do you think a country with no industry and no prospects of fulfilling its obligation to provide sufficient work for its people is wise in taking such a risk.
I repeat - there is no reason why the E.U. should grant privileges to a non - member State - why should it - what has Britain to offer in return (other than a promise that they will lock Nigel Farage in The Tower maybe!!).
Brexit was won on a 'controlling immigration' ticket.
One of the key requirements of any economy is that it should be stable
Economists reckon that the British economy will remain unstable for at least ten years and even then, there is no indication of at what level it will stabalise.
Do you not see how I find it impossible to take the whole shambles of Brexit, from its rise in racist incidents to a ******* up economy, at face value?
It's like the Trump thing - you supporters refuse to discuss the implications on the British people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

Jim:
The only "independence" Brexit has brought is the isolation of not allowing British workers to seek work in Europe - "ve vant to be alone"
That statement appears to be about changes that have already been "brought", and seems to be a definitive statement.

Compare that with: When Brexit is resolved, British workers will no longer be able to freely seek work in Europe, as I understand it. which makes it clear that it is just one person's view of what the future may hold.

Do you see why it is so difficult for people to take your arguments at face value?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:56 AM

"British workers are not allowed to seek employment in Europe?"
When Brexit is resolved, British workers will no longer be able to freely seek work in Europe, as I understand it.
"Currently EU workers are entitled to: travel across an open border; recognition of their professional qualifications; take up employment without restriction; be treated equally and without discrimination based on nationality; access healthcare both where they live and where they work; and access, and occasionally export, social welfare payments based on their EU record of social insurance contributions."
This is quite likely to disappear with Brexit - at the very least, this is what has been put at risk.
There is no reason whatever that Britain should be afforded any benefits not enjoyed by any other nation on the planet.
As I said - not independence, just who we are dependent on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

The only "independence" Brexit has brought is the isolation of not allowing British workers to seek work in Europe - "ve vant to be alone"

British workers are not allowed to seek employment in Europe? I must have missed that in the newspapers (or is it just in your imagination?). I thought the negotiations on exit were yet to start.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

More time now
Teribus
Your loutish behaviour does not hide either your ignorance nor your dishonesty
Your lateest (carefully unlinked) claim about the left supporting nuclear weapons - "Well good ol Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin were 100% behind the UK having them Jom?" underlines my point.
It is taken from a article that points out that despite the admiration of the left for Atlee (Bevin could never in a million years have been described as "left") his stance on nuclear weapons was in total opposition to that of the left
As I said - THE LEFT have always opposed nuclear weapons despite the actions of some politicians.
Nigel
Despite your assertions, Brexit will not give Britain independence from anybody - the only change it will bring about will be who Britain is dependent on.
We will continue to fill our sops with goods manufactured by near slave labour in conditions it would be illegal to keep animals in - creating conditions fit for terrorist to thrive from.
We will continue to sell weapons to monsters who profit from these societies.
We weill now become dependent on Trump - hence May's undignified scramble to kiss his arse.
Trumps belligerent racism towards Muslim nations has already nudged the Doomsday clock up another couple of notches and the fact that he is in trall to Russia has added yet another genocidal war in the Ukraine to our collection.
The only "independence" Brexit has brought is the isolation of not allowing British workers to seek work in Europe - "ve vant to be alone"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:59 AM

Well you were applying 1940s and1950s thinking to modern situations so where's yer beef? Do you really think that a 1940s leftie, dusting himself or herself down after two bloody wars, is the same thing as a 2017 leftie? Had Attlee been around today he might have been thrown out of the party for blatant sexism. He turned into a hardline Cold War warrior before the end of his first term and was a patriotic Empire golden-age little Englander. And I see nothing whatsoever dated in Humphreys' piece. You don't get to dismiss it so easily. It's a piece of whimsy, all right, but out of whimsy can come forth reflection. Instead, you see who's posted and immediately focus on the next pejorative you can dredge up.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:44 AM

Sorry - missed a bit
"What a typical "socialists" response Shaw. "
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM

Jom

Latest display from of persuasive argument – from this thread alone – so far - no doubt much more to come

Best stick to your wild flowers and your diet.

Only to you Stu, only to you.

Priceless Raggy - f**kin' priceless
Stick to orchids pal - you know S.F.A. about submarines.
And no Raggy unlike you I do not believe everything I read in the Press.

Well Stu at least you seem to realise that the point Raggytush was trying to make was a load of shit.

What part of "the Vanguard Class of nuclear missile carrying submarines is unaffected" did you fail to understand?

Do you do that "veracity check" before or after you post complete and utter codswallop Raggers? Applied to this thread it would appear that you only do your checking after the event of you going into print and making a complete and utter arse of yourself.

Ah Raggyarse, paying far too much attention to Jom I see - you shouldn't because off traditional music he's not really all that reliable.

What's the matter Raggedarse plain English comprehension too difficult for you, or are you catching Jom's dyslexia - never thought it was contagious. What is it about you Raggy that compels you to react to every post by trying to make some pathetic smart-arse remark that never quite gets there but just merely succeeds in you jamming both your feet firmly in your mouth - here is a classic example:

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:24 PM

Terrikins, Once again you seem to be labouring under the impression that there is a gang/group/lot of people all opposing you.

I am not part of any gang as I've indicated before. I recently even put up a record of my personal interaction with the people you suspect I am in a gang with, it is minimal to say the least.

Still I suspect you still believe there are reds under the bed.

Hope you have a good nights sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 03:51 AM

Jim:
Any future this planet has is dependent on international co-operation - the exact opposite of both Brexit and Trumpism.
Despite your assertions Brexit is not the opposite of international cooperation.
Brexit will allow the UK to cooperate internationally as a sovereign state, rather than as part of an artificial bloc.

International cooperation does not mean cooperating with Europe. It means cooperating with all nations.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 02:24 AM

What a typical "socialists" response Shaw. As to introducing the bit quoted from Nicholas Humphrey (1982), who was being deliberately obtuse. I'd make the observation that it is idiotic to apply 1980s thinking and views to 1940s situations.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 09:29 PM

Attlee and Bevan were both men with many flaws. I don't even make the excuse that they were simply "of their time," so let's just say that they espoused non-PC views that would have modern-day lefties horrified. But they did give us the NHS and they did set this country on the road to post-war recovery. As for going naked into the conference chamber, read this:

AN IMMODEST PROPOSAL

In 1957 at the Labour Party's debate on disarmament, Aneurin Bevan declared that he was not prepared to 'go naked into the conference chamber'. It is a phrase which has been echoed by Tory and Labour defence spokesmen alike; something similar was said at the Liberal Party conference in September 1981. But what was it that Bevan had to hide? Bevan came into the world naked, and naked he left it. Why should he have been afraid to go naked into the conference chamber to discuss matters of global life and death? What he had to hide, as much from himself as from his adversaries, was nothing less than his humanity.

Of course, by the rules of the game he had to hide it. For no naked human being, conscious of his own essential ordinariness, the chairseat pressing against his buttocks, his toes wriggling beneath the conference table, his penis hanging limply a few feet from Mr Andropov's, could possibly play the game of international politics and barter like a god with the lives of millions of his fellow men. No naked human being could threaten to press the nuclear button.

So I come to my proposal. Our leaders must be given no choice but to go naked into the conference chamber. At the United Nations General Assembly, at the Geneva disarmament negotiations, at the next summit in Moscow or in Washington, there shall be a notice pinned to the door: 'Reality gate. Human beings only beyond this point. NO Clothes.' And then, as the erstwhile iron maiden takes her place beside the erstwhile bionic commissar, it may dawn on them that neither she nor he is made of iron or steel, but rather of a warmer, softer and much more magical material, flesh and blood. Perhaps as Mr Andropov looks at his navel and realises that he, like the rest of us, was once joined from there to a proud and aching mother, as Mrs Thatcher feels the table-cloth tickling her belly, they will start to laugh at their pretensions to be superhuman rulers of the lives of others. If they do not actually make love they will, at least, barely be capable of making war.

[Nicholas Humphrey, 1982]

Back to sanity, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 03:07 PM

"The Left has always opposed Nuclear Weapons, whoever has them - it's on record" - Jom

Well good ol Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin were 100% behind the UK having them Jom?

Clement Attlee revered on the left as the father of the NHS and the welfare state. What a pity Jom forgot his role as the father of Britain's nuclear bomb. All done in secret Jom no reference to Parliament.

"The answer to an atomic bomb on London is an atomic bomb on another great city," - Clement Attlee 22 days after Hiroshima

Ernest Bevin: "We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs," foreign secretary, and former trade union leader, Ernest Bevin, is reported to have told one committee.
"We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

Aneurin Bevan: 1957 he surprised supporters by hitting back at calls for Britain to get rid of it nuclear weapons by telling that year's party conference the unilateralists were gripped by an "an emotional spasm" that would send a future Labour foreign secretary "naked into the conference chamber".

Then of course every Labour Party Manifesto has stated that the Party would retain our nuclear deterrent and every Labour Government has voted to keep our nuclear deterrent.

From that then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Labour Party must have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Left" Jom. In which case why have all you "lefties" been voting for them?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 02:36 PM

"So who bells the cat?"
Just like a trip back to the sixties (or listening to an argument by the gun-lobby).
Demands for Nuclear weapons to be brought under international control have been part of most of my life
Unless a nation is ruled by raving madmen they will never be used - in which case they are not a deterrent
Any future this planet has is dependent on international co-operation - the exact opposite of both Brexit and Trumpism.
The more nations build walls around themselves, the higher the risk.
One of the greatest international opportunities in my lifetime was thrown away when the Arab Spring was not supported.
Basically, all human beings just want to stay alive and have enough to live on - take steps to solve that and you start winning the hearts and minds of those who matter..
The problem of the fanatics does not enter into the equation - no nuclear weapons are going to deter them and nobody knows where to use them without wiping out swathes of mankind.
Any move to disarm is a risk, and always has been, but no greater one than putting a madman multi- billionair's reach of 'The Button' - that's 'James Bond' territory.
Go check the Doomsday Clock and see what time it is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM

So who bells the cat?

How are you going to get Russia to give them up?

How are you going to get China to give them up?

How are you going to keep Iran from getting them?

When you have that figured out then you can dream about a world free of nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM

Good to know that the Left would rather depend on Trump and America to provide nuclear protection against Russia and China."
The Left has always opposed Nuclear Weapons, whoever has them - it's on record
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

Well speaking for myself I would prefer it is no such weapons existed.

The fact we could ensure mutual destruction does not help one iota if I am blown to smithereens.

Am I going to go to my death rejoicing that my government is causing some poor bastard I have never met to suffer the same fate as me.

The answer to that question is resolutely NO!

Any other answer to my mind is insane.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:05 PM

Good to know that the Left would rather depend on Trump and America to provide nuclear protection against Russia and China.

Unless they mean to depend on the next largest nuclear power. That would be Israel, by number of warheads...

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM

It was a bit tongue in cheek to Jim, I wasn't being serious. I quite like Terbius, the lad's consistent, although I'm still not sure after all these years whether he's taking the piss or not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:00 PM

If only we could all decide that the Connemara orchids are a thousand times more important than a bunch of dismal underwater tubes carrying weapons of ultimate destruction....let's stay sane!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:59 PM

Don't believe it. I'm a reet bizzball me.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:50 PM

"Tezza's thinks "
Hate to point it out Stu but you're sinking to his schoolyard name calling level
You're better than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:27 PM

"Still I suspect you still believe there are reds under the bed."

Tezza's thinks we're all BETTER DEAD THAN RED whether we want to be or not. The cheek!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:24 PM

Terrikins, Once again you seem to be labouring under the impression that there is a gang/group/lot of people all opposing you.

I am not part of any gang as I've indicated before. I recently even put up a record of my personal interaction with the people you suspect I am in a gang with, it is minimal to say the least.

Still I suspect you still believe there are reds under the bed.

Hope you have a good nights sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:09 PM

"Not really interested, as you lot seem to be, in mithering about what may or may not happen at some indeterminate time in the future."
So you are not interested in what state the world is when we leave it to our kids - whe=at in incredibly selfish attitude
Makes sense of a lot!!
And yet more displays of insecurity
Jim Carroll

Latest display from of persuasive argument – from this thread alone – so far - no doubt much more to come

Best stick to your wild flowers and your diet.

Only to you Stu, only to you.

Priceless Raggy - f**kin' priceless
Stick to orchids pal - you know S.F.A. about submarines.
And no Raggy unlike you I do not believe everything I read in the Press.

Well Stu at least you seem to realise that the point Raggytush was trying to make was a load of shit.

What part of "the Vanguard Class of nuclear missile carrying submarines is unaffected" did you fail to understand?

Do you do that "veracity check" before or after you post complete and utter codswallop Raggers? Applied to this thread it would appear that you only do your checking after the event of you going into print and making a complete and utter arse of yourself.

Ah Raggyarse, paying far too much attention to Jom I see - you shouldn't because off traditional music he's not really all that reliable.

What's the matter Raggedarse plain English comprehension too difficult for you, or are you catching Jom's dyslexia - never thought it was contagious. What is it about you Raggy that compels you to react to every post by trying to make some pathetic smart-arse remark that never quite gets there but just merely succeeds in you jamming both your feet firmly in your mouth - here is a classic example:

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:57 AM

Just asking a question Raggyarse - She seems to be blamed directly for everything by you Lefties and so-called "socialists" at the drop of a hat.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:56 AM

"I object to the inference that Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the nations of USA & UK were insane."
Thay were Atom Bombs Nigel - and they were used, which should be warning enough of the insanity of ever considering such an obscenity being ever used again.
Jim Carroll
Exactly. You cannot apply present day knowledge to classify those who used (or authorised the use of) the bombs in those particular circumstances as 'insane'

Jim's comment was: Nuclear weapons have never been considered by any sane nation as a practical, never mind a human method of warfare . thus classifying anyone who has ever used nuclear weapons as 'insane'

My comments were in relation to that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:50 AM

Care to tell me where I have mentioned Thatcher?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:47 AM

Well now Raggy, on the subject of dead people not being dierectly responsible for things that happened after their death - does that still hold good with you and your clown pals for Margaret Thatcher?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:04 AM

You obviously fail to understand that if someone is deceased they cannot be held to be DIRECTLY responsible.

Did Roosevelt give the order to use "the first special bomb" himself or did someone else give the order.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 10:54 AM

Stu - 14 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM

"he often doesn't reply to questioning about the morality of such acts of barbarity."

What acts of barbarity have I not replied to questions about Stu?

Think I've said this before quite recently. I will only comment on events and things that have happened, or on things actually stated by the principals involved. Not really interested, as you lot seem to be, in mithering about what may or may not happen at some indeterminate time in the future.

"I do personally know about seven of them. Then of course I could go into those of that rank I knew but who have passed away in the last fifteen years" - Teribus

Elicited the following from Raggy - "Of course you know all those Admirals Teri, of course you do. Nelson, Jellicoe, Mountbatten..."

What's the matter Raggedarse plain English comprehension too difficult for you, or are you catching Jom's dyslexia - never thought it was contagious. What is it about you Raggy that compels you to react to every post by trying to make some pathetic smart-arse remark that never quite gets there but just merely succeeds in you jamming both your feet firmly in your mouth - here is a classic example:

"I don't think any direct blame can be laid at FDR's door, he had died 4 months beforehand."

I take it that you realise somebody had to have authorised the Manhattan Project which ran from 1942 until 1946 - who was the President of the United States in 1942 Raggy? He was one of the half-dozen people who knew that they were designing and building the most powerful bomb in the history of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 06:35 AM

By the way Nigel.
If the people you mention had been aware of the effects of these weapons on humanity they were either insane or should have stood in the dock next to Goering and Hess and tried for crimes against humanity.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 06:28 AM

"I object to the inference that Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the nations of USA & UK were insane."
Thay were Atom Bombs Nigel - and they were used, which should be warning enough of the insanity of ever considering such an obscenity being ever used again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 06:02 AM

Well, Nigel, apropos of nuclear insanity:

Only part of us is sane: only part of us loves pleasure and the longer day of happiness, wants to live to our nineties and die in peace, in a house that we built, that shall shelter those who come after us. The other half of us is nearly mad. It prefers the disagreeable to the agreeable, loves pain and its darker night despair, and wants to die in a catastrophe that will set back life to its beginnings and leave nothing of our house save its blackened foundations.

[Rebecca West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon]


President Truman to the officers of the Augusta, reported in the Times on 7 August 1945: The experiment has been an overwhelming success.

The same paper the next day:

The fundamental power of the universe, the power manifested in the sunshine that has been recognised as the sustaining force of earthly life, is entrusted at last to human hands.

Daily Express, 10 August 1981:

The neutron weapon is for Western Europe today what the English longbow was for Henry V and his army at Agincourt in 1415.

Ah yes, all totally sane. Of course! How insulting to declare that advocates of nuclear weapons are insane!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:54 AM

Yes, but if one of those little buggers flaps its wings in Peru we get a storm.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

Yep, Greg, same species! Most of ours migrate here from Europe in spring (don't tell Farage) but a few manage to hibernate in southern England. Most of yours move up from the south as as well, including from Mexico. We should adopt the red admiral as our emblem of resistance to Trump and the little Englanders who are leading us to brexit disaster. Out of delicacy and beauty comes forth strength!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM

I don't think any direct blame can be laid at FDR's door, he had died 4 months beforehand.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:30 AM

Jim:
Nuclear weapons have never been considered by any sane nation as a practical, never mind a human method of warfare .

I object to the inference that Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the nations of USA & UK were insane.

Of course you may have meant something entirely different, but I can only respond to what you actually type.

The actions of the Allies may have been wrong in hindsight, but even that is open to debate.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM

"Stu I'm sure you know you are discussing this with a senior member of the MOD (retired) who knows far more than you."

Hardly; he often doesn't reply to questioning about the morality of such acts of barbarity.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:22 AM

Of course you know all those Admirals Teri, of course you do. Nelson,
Jellicoe, Mountbatten ......................








............. Matron, check his medication again would you

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 03:55 AM

Nuclear weapons have never been considered by any sane nation as a practical, never mind a human method of warfare .
Crazies like Westmorland proposed their use in Vietnam, but nobody took him seriously - thank god.
They are the wet dreams of fanatics - it seems we in Mudcat have our own Doctor Strangelove.
The present problem is that we now have a madman in the White House - lets hope the U.S. has an efficient deterrent to him in place,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:30 PM

Now that's interesting, Steve - we have Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta) butterflies here in the Colonies as well - didn't realize they were the same species in the Britain!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:13 PM

I can beat that. I had eight red admirals all at once one day last August, flitting around the 🌺🌸🌻s in my garden. The 🦋s were ever so pretty. They especially seemed to like my Sedums and my Buddleia. I also had a few commas and peacocks and was mightily relieved to see the small 🐢shells rallying late on after a disastrous start to the season. Not a good year for painted 💃🏻s, sadly. We did have a humming 🐦 🦅 moth early on, but nothing like the huge numbers of a few years ago. It's been a pretty good winter for garden 🐦s so far with plenty of song birds and a woodpecker or two. More to come. Lots!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM

Ah Raggyarse, paying far too much attention to Jom I see - you shouldn't because off traditional music he's not really all that reliable. He apparently has a thing about cooks. He seems to have a real downer on the profession, possibly on one occasion one of them put something nasty in his bucket of gruel, whatever it was it was obviously remembered and probably richly deserved.

Admiral - good heavens no - but I do personally know about seven of them. Then of course I could go into those of that rank I knew but who have passed away in the last fifteen years - and no I did not cook for any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

Stu I'm sure you know you are discussing this with a senior member of the MOD (retired) who knows far more than you.

It's frankly amazing how much you can learn in the galley when frying eggs.

I'm surprised he's not an Admiral.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM

"as everything you say in your post would befall any nation or regime that threatened the UK."

It wouldn't befall a nation or regime, it would befall innocent people with no control over the situation. If you would contemplate killing on such a scale, regardless of provocation, where is your basic humanity? I don't doubt there are people who would comment such an atrocity, but I find the desire to inflict revenge in such an arbitrary and murderous way incomprehensible.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:11 PM

Do you do that "veracity check" before or after you post complete and utter codswallop Raggers? Applied to this thread it would appear that you only do your checking after the event of you going into print and making a complete and utter arse of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:42 AM

None, but like you claim to do, I question the veracity of such statements.

It's strange that you only want to believe some information, I try to question everything.

Still I'm not worried by our apparent dearth of Nuclear deterrent, when the MOD have you to fall back on in case of emergencies.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:30 AM

Well Stu at least you seem to realise that the point Raggytush was trying to make was a load of shit.

As for the rest - that is why having that one submarine at sea is such a good deterrent - as everything you say in your post would befall any nation or regime that threatened the UK.

Oh Raggy going back to your "nuclear deterrent submarines" - In that SKY News piece you linked to - What part of "the Vanguard Class of nuclear missile carrying submarines is unaffected" did you fail to understand?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM

"load all 16 tubes and that target list goes up to 192."

That should you choose to hit with your bombs (if they work, that is) would turn you into the single most genocidal, insane, murdering piece of human shite ever to draw breath in history, happy to inflict untold and immeasurable suffering on countless innocent human beings.

Now if you could even consider the idiocy of launching nuclear weapons, an act of futility beyond comprehension, what does that make you as a person, a human being?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:37 AM

Neither do I territowllin' nor do I believe everything the MOD puts out.

Nor do I have complete confidence in the operating systems of the submarines (which seems justified given how many are non operational) or the operating systems of the missile themselves.

However we can all sleep easy. No doubt the MOD will give you a call if they get stuck!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:12 AM

Raggytash - 13 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM

So we MAY have a one Vanguard Class submarine on patrol at sea.

Hmmm .............. I get a lovely image of top brass at the MOD choosing which targets to hit.

Enny Meeny Miny Moe ................. lovely !!


That's right Raggy with one boat on patrol they can play eeny, meeny, miny, moe to pick out at least 48 targets, and that is with only half the tubes loaded - load all 16 tubes and that target list goes up to 192.

"I just like the thought of you and your chums quaking in your beds because we has no nuclear deterrent." - Raggytush

Priceless Raggy - f**kin' priceless

Stick to orchids pal - you know S.F.A. about submarines.

And no Raggy unlike you I do not believe everything I read in the Press.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:54 AM

Anyway back to Orchids. Last year we rented a house at Claddaghduff, on the Aughrus Peninsula. Looking out of the window one morning I noticed a purple spike coming from the lawn. On closer inspection is turned out to be a Marsh Fragrant Orchid and then I noticed there was not just one but dozens of them strewn across the lawn.

In searching for a photograph I came across a wonderful blog site which details flowers and birds across Galway, Clare and Mayo.

When things are getting tedious I will share some of them with you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM

Stu:
This sentence is incoherent.
No, it appears coherent, and as such, is a paradox.

Perhaps you meant "The sentence above is incoherent."

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM

So we MAY have a one Vanguard Class submarine on patrol at sea.

Hmmm .............. I get a lovely image of top brass at the MOD choosing which targets to hit.

Enny Meeny Miny Moe ................. lovely !!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

It wasn't only Stu, take it from me. And your emphasis on the bigness of the big "IF" is actually an argument against four, not in favour.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM

"were expected to go to hotel lounges in the company of other ladies "
Missed this G.M.
I have a wonderful memory of our march to Holy Loch passing a roadside pub on a very warm day
The pub was quite long, with a a door at either end and those who fancied a bit of refreshment entered in the first one and, finding they didn't serve women, walking the length of the bar and out of the other, without buying a pint.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:19 AM

Frankly Terrikins I couldn't give a damn. I just like the thought of you and your chums quaking in your beds because we has no nuclear deterrent.

The article was written in the Telegraph, surely you believe them, the Daily Mail also covered it, don't you believe them?

It was even on Sky News that paragon of truth.

Sky News

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:01 AM

"This sentence is incoherent."

Only to you Stu, only to you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:59 AM

Not really Raggy

"Our nuclear deterrent submarines" - Wrong

Plain in even the earliest reports the submarines being talked about were our newest Astute-class boats but that still leaves the RN's Trafalgar-Class SSNs.

So c'mon Raggy explain to us all how laying out facts can in any way be described as "clutching at straws"

Best stick to your wild flowers and your diet.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:54 AM

"The Lib-Dems wanted to trim the SSBN Fleet to only three submarines, now IF and it is a very big IF indeed, reports are true regarding our SSNs happen to be true then there is no better argument for illustrating the need for four new SSBNs going."

This sentence is incoherent.



"We may need you to rescue us...."

Then you are in trouble!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:49 AM

clutch ..... straw ...... clutch ...... straw

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:40 AM

"all our nuclear deterrent submarines are not being very deterrent at the moment"

Factually incorrect as our "deterrent submarines", the Vanguard-Class SSBNs are in their normal operational cycle with one boat at sea on patrol at all times.

The submarines the reports are about are the Astute-Class SSNs of which only three of a Class of seven are in service, the others are still in construction. The Lib-Dems wanted to trim the SSBN Fleet to only three submarines, now IF and it is a very big IF indeed, reports are true regarding our SSNs happen to be true then there is no better argument for illustrating the need for four new SSBNs going.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:28 AM

"With Donald Trump at the helm of the American Ship of State, I hope you Brits keep your submarines in good repair"
That occurred to me last night when I watched the news report of Trump's reaction to the news that North Korea had tested a weapon - very reminiscent of The Cuban Crisis.
I guess that the Doomsday Clock shifted towards midnight a few points over the last few weeks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 10:54 PM

With Donald Trump at the helm of the American Ship of State, I hope you Brits keep your submarines in good repair. We may need you to rescue us....

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 09:21 PM

I hear that Tronald Dump has called Kim Il U Suk Oo Flung Dung, whatever he's called, a bad dude, but has said he would talk to him over a hamburger. That get-together would be less of a summit meeting and more of a Mariana Trench meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:50 PM

Well, Gallus Moll, I went on a good few peace marches meself, mainly to US air bases, and Mrs Steve surrounded Greenham (along with thousands of other women!) one night in 1983. Lucky bugger - she chose the hottest night of the 20th century so she didn't even need her cardie! I have photos of my two kids wearing mole masks at Molesworth, and, though we don't know how it happened, our little son, who we'd temporarily lost, managed to walk at the head of the demo alongside Anne Clwyd! I had an estate car at the time (station wagon, yanks) and I loaded it up with logs for firewood to take to the women's camps at Greenham. They were very suspicious of a man helping out and I actually found that quite humbling.

In the early 80s I used to help out on the CND stall in Loughton, Essex, where we lived at the time. Every Saturday morning we were filmed from the top of a building opposite our stall, and my phone was bugged (nothing subtle about it in those days - lots of clunks and clicks on the line and the sound of a sudden hanging-up if you swore at the spooks!) 😂

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:26 PM

Jim C - when I was young (but old enough to drink!) 'ladies' were expected to go to hotel lounges in the company of other ladies (all wearing skirts of course, never trousers!) or a male escort. Entering a bar was out of the question! - As students a group of us would journey along Rose St (Edinburgh)trying to get served in every pub along the way - and being refused in most as they 'didn't serve females' -- when asked why the - usually female bar tender - would explain they had no ladies' toilet! We would counter that we didn't require the toilet -- to no avail. There were even coffee lounges in Glasgow that were reserved for men/business men only- - - no women! Unbelievable nowadays. I began striding into these premises (bars, coffee exclusion zones) on my own (which was unheard of!) and being assertive, sometimes verging on aggressive in order to get service. (And don't get me started about how a female needed a male guarantor in order to get a mortgage back in the olden days of the 60s and early 70s - -- )

Steve S - we used to go on Easter Vigil events and Women's Peace marches to the US base, sign a peace petition or lie down on the road opposite the end of the pier. MI whatever would be at the upstairs windows taking our photos- and we would be taking theirs! Sadly this was long before mobile phones / internet / social media .....

PS Waverley has some Summer trips up Loch Long - and if it gets a little too close to the Faslane side of the loch the police launches whizz out and buzz about her!

If anyone plans to revisit the Holy Loch area (US Navy long gone!)and wants to have a wee sing song of Ding Dong Dollar and the like, give me and Akhenaton a shout! We'll round up a few of the Glesca Eskimos for a session!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

Robotmatic, you are of course correct.

However in my defence it was rather late,in fact I was about to fall asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM

Raggytash, maybe you should have provided that link in the OP. I had no idea what you were on about.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph doesn't strike me as 'world-class' source material. They also frame the headline in the form of a denial. MOD could be denying that little pink men landed their spaceship in Trafalgar Square, for instance.

And if I were the MOD I would not be providing any information I did not have to regarding disposition of military assets.

There is of course the question of what military assets are worth having. I'm unaware of the UK's sea resources. Obviously the British Navy has been a consequential military presence for hundreds of years. It would naturally include submarines. The need for nukes must have been a deeply considered item.

I remember how the lack of adequate Aircraft Carrier resources impacted the Falklands War. I believe the US helped.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 09:47 AM

The missiles don't work anyway. Load of junk, best to spend the money on something worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: banjoman
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:38 AM

How long have we been without a sub on active service?
Seems to me that perhaps we don't need them anyway and all we need is to convince others that we have them. Pity then about the leaked info that they are all in dock for repair. We could save billions by simply expounding a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:23 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/britains-entire-fleet-attack-submarines-action/

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:13 AM

I went on a boat trip up the river with me mum and dad in a freezing cold July day in 1961 when I was 10. I took a photo of the Polaris stuff with my Brownie 127 and spent the rest of the holiday shit scared of being arrested for treason.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 03:34 AM

"get them tae f-- oot o' ma back yard! "
Can we all look forward to future trips to Holy Loch, G. M.?
It's been a long time!
I remember the last time I was there, the pubs wouldn't serve women.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:58 PM

get them tae f-- oot o' ma back yard!

if the so called government (Westminster) wants them - park them in the Thames.

but considering the 'deficit' and the state of NHS, foodbanks and people setting up home and sleeping on the pavements- - I think my tax money could be better spent- - - -

quality of life / fairness for everyone, and stuff the subs!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Banjo-Flower
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:21 PM

Whatever happened to confidential information
lets tell the world we've got our pants down

Gerry

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:10 PM

Detergents are possibly as good, certainly at the moment!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:04 PM

I like them nuclear detergents. Get the grease off your cooker no problem.

DtG

Subject: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM

Well that's a bit of a bugger, all our nuclear deterrent submarines are not being very deterrent at the moment.

Still I suppose it's all money well spent eh.