Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafehuddy

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: UK nuclear subs

Raggytash 10 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Feb 17 - 04:04 PM
Raggytash 10 Feb 17 - 04:10 PM
Banjo-Flower 10 Feb 17 - 06:21 PM
Gallus Moll 10 Feb 17 - 06:58 PM
Jim Carroll 11 Feb 17 - 03:34 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Feb 17 - 05:13 AM
Raggytash 11 Feb 17 - 05:23 AM
banjoman 11 Feb 17 - 05:38 AM
Stu 11 Feb 17 - 09:47 AM
robomatic 11 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM
Raggytash 11 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM
Gallus Moll 12 Feb 17 - 08:26 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Feb 17 - 08:50 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Feb 17 - 09:21 PM
Joe Offer 12 Feb 17 - 10:54 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Feb 17 - 03:28 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 17 - 03:40 AM
Raggytash 13 Feb 17 - 05:49 AM
Stu 13 Feb 17 - 05:54 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 17 - 05:59 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 17 - 06:01 AM
Raggytash 13 Feb 17 - 06:19 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM
Raggytash 13 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM
Nigel Parsons 13 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM
Raggytash 13 Feb 17 - 07:54 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 17 - 08:12 AM
Raggytash 13 Feb 17 - 08:37 AM
Stu 13 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 17 - 11:30 AM
Raggytash 13 Feb 17 - 11:42 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 17 - 12:11 PM
Stu 13 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM
Raggytash 13 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM
Teribus 13 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Feb 17 - 08:13 PM
Greg F. 13 Feb 17 - 09:30 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Feb 17 - 03:55 AM
Raggytash 14 Feb 17 - 04:22 AM
Stu 14 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM
Nigel Parsons 14 Feb 17 - 05:30 AM
Raggytash 14 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM
Raggytash 14 Feb 17 - 05:54 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Feb 17 - 06:02 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Feb 17 - 06:28 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Feb 17 - 06:35 AM
Teribus 14 Feb 17 - 10:54 AM
Raggytash 14 Feb 17 - 11:04 AM
Teribus 14 Feb 17 - 11:47 AM
Raggytash 14 Feb 17 - 11:50 AM
Nigel Parsons 14 Feb 17 - 11:56 AM
Teribus 14 Feb 17 - 11:57 AM
Jim Carroll 14 Feb 17 - 12:09 PM
Raggytash 14 Feb 17 - 12:24 PM
Stu 14 Feb 17 - 12:27 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Feb 17 - 12:50 PM
Stu 14 Feb 17 - 12:59 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Feb 17 - 01:00 PM
Stu 14 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM
beardedbruce 14 Feb 17 - 01:05 PM
Raggytash 14 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM
beardedbruce 14 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM
Jim Carroll 14 Feb 17 - 02:36 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 17 - 03:07 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Feb 17 - 09:29 PM
Teribus 15 Feb 17 - 02:24 AM
Nigel Parsons 15 Feb 17 - 03:51 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Feb 17 - 05:44 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Feb 17 - 05:59 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM
Nigel Parsons 15 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Feb 17 - 09:56 AM
Nigel Parsons 15 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Feb 17 - 12:15 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Feb 17 - 09:16 PM
Greg F. 15 Feb 17 - 10:32 PM
Nigel Parsons 16 Feb 17 - 03:47 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM
Nigel Parsons 16 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 17 - 06:00 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM
Stanron 16 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM
Iains 16 Feb 17 - 07:22 AM
Nigel Parsons 16 Feb 17 - 08:15 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 17 - 09:00 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM
Teribus 16 Feb 17 - 02:13 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 17 - 04:06 PM
Teribus 16 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 17 - 05:38 PM
Greg F. 16 Feb 17 - 06:41 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 17 - 08:09 PM
Teribus 17 Feb 17 - 03:12 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Feb 17 - 03:38 AM
Teribus 17 Feb 17 - 04:49 AM
Nigel Parsons 17 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Feb 17 - 05:51 AM
Stanron 17 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM
Iains 17 Feb 17 - 06:20 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Feb 17 - 06:37 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM
Iains 17 Feb 17 - 06:50 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM
Nigel Parsons 17 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM
Teribus 17 Feb 17 - 08:23 AM
Greg F. 17 Feb 17 - 09:27 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM
Teribus 17 Feb 17 - 10:49 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Feb 17 - 10:57 AM
Teribus 17 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM
Iains 17 Feb 17 - 02:36 PM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Feb 17 - 04:52 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM
Raggytash 18 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Feb 17 - 06:27 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Feb 17 - 06:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Feb 17 - 03:29 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Feb 17 - 05:22 PM
Teribus 18 Feb 17 - 09:45 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Feb 17 - 03:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Feb 17 - 04:01 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Feb 17 - 04:44 AM
akenaton 19 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Feb 17 - 09:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 03:28 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 03:54 AM
Teribus 20 Feb 17 - 03:59 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 04:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 06:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 06:56 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 07:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 07:36 AM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 07:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 07:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 07:46 AM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 07:52 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 08:26 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 08:32 AM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 08:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 09:40 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Feb 17 - 12:47 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM
Teribus 20 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Feb 17 - 02:14 PM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 02:16 PM
Teribus 20 Feb 17 - 02:45 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM
Teribus 20 Feb 17 - 03:37 PM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 03:37 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 03:53 PM
Teribus 20 Feb 17 - 04:19 PM
Raggytash 20 Feb 17 - 05:33 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Feb 17 - 06:04 PM
Dave the Gnome 20 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Feb 17 - 06:42 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 07:40 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Feb 17 - 08:37 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!) 😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 !!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Care to tell me where I have mentioned Thatcher?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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:


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

"a female Labour MP"

Ann Cryer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Jim's Link


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 21 February 12:18 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.