BS: 'Sir' Philip Green

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

Labour peer Peter Hain has been placed under formal investigation for allegedly failing to disclose a conflict of interest when he used Parliamentary privilege to air allegations against Sir Philip Green.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6611501/Labour-peer-faces-conflict-probe-airing-allegations-against-Sir-Philip-Green.ht

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:54 PM

Now ladies, what are we going to do now the brat's safely tucked up in bed - who's got the cooking sherry ?
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:21 PM

" Must be time for another little nap,"
Easy peasy - innit lads - he's neither as bright or amusing as those he attempts to imitate - not even entertaining
And this sprinting for cover is getting to be a habit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:15 PM

No sensible argument or responses off the three stooges. Must be time for another little nap,

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:02 PM

It's 'Hain', singular.

Dead easy innit, this nitpicking?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 11:50 AM

"Are you going to waffle and evade like your little mate"
You relly can't stop yourself, can you?
Personal and racist abuse
You have avoided every point made, as oyu have the request for examples of lying

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 10:48 AM

You still carefully ignore the main issue. Hains thwarted the right of the judiciary to make a definitive ruling. .

"You think that a serial bully and sex pest is more virtuous. Grand. "

Care to point out where I have stated that? Are you going to waffle and evade like your little mate, or man up and admit you made it all up.

As Anne Widdecombe said:
"I am defending the supremacy of law and anybody who does not understand the difference should go back to school."
That has always been my position and you can find it stated consistently in my posts.

I wonder if the injunction was repeated under Scottish Law. If not Hains might have been able to contact a Scottish Newspaper and break the story anonymously. But that would have stopped Hains grandstanding and perhaps not succeeded in deflecting attention away from the renewed accusations of antisemitism within certain of the Labour Party.
I wonder where the real truth lies?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 09:51 AM

"...while Hain is allowed to skulk behind Parliamentary privilege."

Nope. He used a constitutional right, within the rule of law, that is available to members of both houses and which can be a valuable obstacle to attempts to subvert democracy. There was no skulking. In fact, Hain has been completely open and full-on. In his opinion he was a exposing a known bully and sex pest who he thought needed to be exposed and who he felt was being protected by a bad injunction. So you disagree. Just say you disagree and stop trying to kid us that he is skulking or being cowardly. He has actually stuck his head above the parapet. And, as an aside, just console yourself that he's a far better man than the man he's exposed. But you don't agree. You think that a serial bully and sex pest is more virtuous. Grand.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 06:54 AM

"The fact you do not like a particular law is not going to change it."
Nothing to do with what any of us "like" - if a law is unfair, it is unfair and needs to be either changed or opposed
If scum like Robinson are freed by law - fine
If they offend again, they should be banged up again and previous convictions should be taken into consideration

"posturing bog dweller."
Racist shite is what Robinson was put away for - if you are not careful you might end up sharing a cell

"By the way I do not talk down to people"
No you don't - you try to - that's what makes your insults pathetic and you're whingeing about being insulted hilarious

"Still awaiting your evidence to demonstrate you are not a liar"
Still awaiting your examples of my "lying" - you should read Kafka's 'The Trial' sometime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 06:43 AM

"If a law doesn't include all it needs removing not defending and when cases like this arise they need exposing"

The fact you do not like a particular law is not going to change it.
You probably do not like the fact Tommy Robinson was released from his bail conditions today.
You could invert your argument and ask: Why was Robinson jailed for alleged contempt while Hain is allowed to skulk behind Parliamentary privilege. It is merely your opinion that the law is non inclusive. The law lords would shit allover your argument.
As has been said many times only Parliament can change laws not a posturing bog dweller.

By the way I do not talk down to people. If what I say makes you feel inferior perhaps you should change the way you think.

Still awaiting your evidence to demonstrate you are not a liar, bluster don't hack it!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 06:29 AM

"Peter Hain decided the law did not apply to him..."

Sorry, Anne, but he didn't "decide" any such thing. It's just the ways things are. Parliamentary privilege is a democratic protection that must be defended. Even when you disagree with how it's been properly used.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 04:45 AM

"I am defending the supremacy of law "
If a law doesn't include all it needs removing not defending and when cases like this arise they need exposing
ou perist in talking down to people - given your performance here it makes you look somewhat silly - pack it in or stop whining about being insulted - your behaviour attracts it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 04:31 AM

As Anne Widdecombe said:
I am defending the supremacy of law and anybody who does not understand the difference should go back to school."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 04:12 AM

"'It's ok for an extremely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women"
If you are not arguing this, what exactly are you saying ?
This feller has been allowed to buy an injunction silencing the media - you refuse to respond to that
Articles like that in the Independent have discussed in detail why this is damaging to press freedom and brings the law into disrepute - you refuse to respond to that
Pater Hain used a privilege granted to him by his position - you abuse him for doing so
You say "e'll see" whether he is disciplined for it - the rest of us say "we'll see if Green the Groper is punished for his behaviour.
You are attacking hai for telling us what wee need to know - that a billionair shopkeeper has been acused of abusing, groping and bullying his staff
Why is it cowardly to tell us who he is - would you defend the rest of us if we were named as "the accused" - 'course you wouldn't
If you are not defending Green you are defending a law that protects all privileged people
Quoting one of the most extreme of Thatcher's thugs changes nothing

Now - what are these lies you say I have told (not just this opinion I offered here - you suggest I am a serial liar) - nor do I sliur - I leave that to serial childish insulters
I don't expect either an apology or a withdrawal - I never do from some people, but don't do it again or you will be sent to bed without any tea
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 03:48 AM

I also make a point of not telling lies - seems pointless to do so

What is this then?
I think we gaot Iain's message - 'It's ok for an extermely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women

Care to quote my actual words to back up your pack of lies ?

.seems pointless to do so. You are a nasty piece of work. You deliberately bend, twist, take out of context, misquote and use any other device to blacken anyone who disagrees with you. You are a constant toxic, corrosive, noxious presence on this forum. Do I need a mad eye Moody to defend against your constant slurs?

Anne Widdecombe presents a position I totally agree with.

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/1039119/uk-latest-comment-ann-widdecombe-naming-philip-green-cowardi
"Peter Hain decided the law did not apply to him and instead of having the courage to name the man in a situation where he could be challenged he chose instead to shelter behind parliamentary privilege.
That is cowardly not brave.
I am not defending Sir Philip Green.
I am defending the supremacy of law and anybody who does not understand the difference should go back to school."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 06:49 AM

" I wonder just how many times I have asked you to back up your constant derogatory comments with proof?"
Whenever you have I have responded (I make a point of doing so) and you walked away without acknowledgement
A fine example is my pointing out the police would have investigated Heath for Paedophilia - the rest was silence
What exactlyare you accusing me of lyin about now ?
I also make a point of not telling lies - seems pointless to do so
Fire away
You say you don't care who you accuse of being a terrorist - fine - most of us do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 06:13 AM

He she? Has the measure of the man. I wonder just how many times I have asked you to back up your constant derogatory comments with proof?
Cannot or will not I ask myself.

If you are not an inveterate liar, defend yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:49 AM

"He is not wrong!"
I'm sure you meant "she"
No doubt you would describe her as an "animal rights terrorist" had you bothered to check who she was rather than scooping up a convenient quote
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:40 AM

Time to move back on topic, I think we gaot Iain's message - 'It's ok for an extermely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women but it's "terrorism" to fight APARTHEID
Jim Carroll         

I've studied pathological liars, and anything they say, they believe, and that's one of the reasons they're so convincing, because they have no connection with the truth. It's a dead issue. It's like they're color-blind to the truth. So anything that comes out of their mouths is their reality.

Jane Velez-Mitchell

He is not wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:34 AM

Freedom fighter, terrorist,revolutionary. Who cares? The label attached depends on the side of the political fence it is being viewed from.
The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century but gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. presidency of Ronald. It was also applied to the activities of Irgun in the late 40's
Interestingly the Malayan Emergency
             the Mau Mau emergency
             the Cyprus emergency. I do not believe the word terrorist was used.
I would be quite happy to accept a definition of a terrorist as being an irregular army in opposition to the Internationally recognised government.

I really do not understand your problem. Mandela's convictions are there for all to see. The activities of his organisation clearly encompass acts that any rational person would accept as terrorism.
Trying to use semantics to argue a flawed man should be sanctified is plainly nonsense.
    Why can you not accept what he demonstrably was in his early life.

What he became, and represented in his later life, is another matter entirely.

I believe that Mandela alone made the transition in South Africa relatively painless and had a tremendous impact on the peaceful evolution of modern South Africa. Without him it would have been a blood bath. I was actually there when the major riots occurred and saw the subsequent chinks slowly open in the apartheid policy. How much of that subsequent change was caused by Mandela's party and how much was driven by the external changes in Mozambique, Angola and Rhodesia is a moot point, but without Mandela presiding over the changeover, the outcome would have been very different.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:55 AM

Time to move back on topic, I think we gaot Iain's message - 'It's ok for an extermely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women but it's "terrorism" to fight APARTHEID
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:23 AM

"How quaint!"
Why - did they not resort to terrorist activities ?

The document, which you obviously have no intention of reading, points out that there is no officially agreed definition of 'Terrorism' and that the term is being regularly used to support policies that would otherwise be regarded as despotic - pretty well as you are using it here
How disgusting
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:18 AM

The only argument is whether or not he WAS a terrorist. There is documented proof he headed a terrorist organisation that murdered people.

A person would have to be in denial, ignorant or exceptionally naive to not understand that many former terrorists go on to become statesmen, some highly respected.

If you took the time to construct accurate posts your inaccuracies, or attempted rewriting of history would not be picked up on.

If they were terrorists, so is every nation who fought such wars - from those who fought Britain to free America to the Jewish People who founded the state of israel - "terrorists" all - even the Chindits and the French Resistance - feckin' ridiculous

How quaint!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:04 AM

Mandela is now recognised by all by those who supported the racist, terrorist Apartheid regime as a freedom fighter - denigrating him as a "terrorist" as Thatcher did, is an unbelievably swing to the right
All freedom fighters have been labelled "terrorists" by those who oppose freedom nothing new here
Mandela formed the ANC to fight Aapartheid - they were at war with the South African regimee
If they were terrorists, so is every nation who fought such wars - from those who fought Britain to free America to the Jewish People who founded the state of israel - "terrorists" all - even the Chindits and the French Resistance - feckin' ridiculous

A bit long and complex, but TRY THIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 03:39 AM

'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, "
for being a member of an illegal organisation that murdered many people.


As a total aside I had an 18th floor flat in the gardens area of Capetown for a couple of years, back in the 70's. The view from the window was straight over Capetown and the bay towards Robben Island.

Now for a few inconvenient facts:
Mandela was arrested on 5th August 1962 and accused of plotting to overthrow the government. In 1964, at the age of 46, he was given a life sentence.

Umkhonto we Sizwewe, meaning ("Spear of the Nation") was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela in the wake of the Sharpeville massacre. Its mission was to fight against the South African government.

South African police statistics indicate that, in the period 1976 to 1986, approximately 130 people were killed by guerrillas. Of these, about thirty were members of various security forces and one hundred were civilians. Of the civilians, 40 were white and 60 black,
There was a bombing campaign, landmine campaign, the use of torture and executions.

All a matter of public record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
https://omalley.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv02918/06lv02938.htm

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 02:39 AM

Couple of typos for you to cling onto there Iains
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 02:38 AM

"Nelson Mandela was 'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, "
aste of time responding to this Baccie - I'm beginning to think he only posts out o a craving for attention - he'll deny having said this when it's mentioned again
HOW THE WORLD REGARDS TERRORISTS

Probably the wrog colour for some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:58 PM

I had two uncles in Smith's Rhodesia, DMcG. My experience of them reflects yours exactly, though they're both long dead now. Not nice men.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:35 PM

Nelson Mandela was 'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, and the conviction was and is invalid as far as any decent, right-thinking human being is concerned. You would probably have felt very comfortable there.

Purely anecdotal but my half brother lived there for decades around that time, loved having the servants and such like but left when apartheid ended, complaining about how badly he has been treated ever since.

I am sure it is entirely coincidental but he is the arch-Brexiteer of the family.

It is safe to say we don't see eye to eye on many things.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:48 PM

You behave like a barrack-room bully, you denigrate and insult those who challenge you - the tactics of a barrack-room bully squaddie. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

Nelson Mandela was 'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, and the conviction was and is invalid as far as any decent, right-thinking human being is concerned. You would probably have felt very comfortable there.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:11 PM

Whether you like it or not, squaddie, Nelson Mandela is rightly regarded by virtually every government in the world as the latter, as well as a Statesman of the highest order.
He was a convicted terrorist first (Documented fact, as previously explained)

squaddie? I think not, but continue if it helps you feel better.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:51 PM

One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. Whether you like it or not, squaddie, Nelson Mandela is rightly regarded by virtually every government in the world as the latter, as well as a Statesman of the highest order.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:43 PM

I suppose pointing to any evidence suggesting anyone supports Green would be a forlorn hope? I see support for the rule of law.


Sanctimonious defence of Green? misogyny?
Can we have a few examples to back up your assertions?



"I lve the way one of the great heroes of the twentieth century has suddenly becoime a terrorist though"

I think he was a convicted terrorist first. An Inconvenient truth I am sure.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:09 PM

I can't believe all these sanctimonious defences of Green either, Jim. To me, it adds up to misogyny.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 11:10 AM

Why bother Steve - he'll just wak away from any reply - why break the habit of a lifetime ?
All these responses are archived - it takes a certain level of individual to deny them
I lve the way one of the great heroes of the twentieth century has suddenly becoime a terrorist though - that puts all these arg8ments squarely where they should be, though it will be denied in a few days
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 10:58 AM

Don't respond, Jim. Let him keep shitting in his own bed. He'll be gone soon.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 09:33 AM

Recently you put up a blog from an extremist racist blogger
In it it described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and equates him with Robert Mugabe

Where does a blog come from if not from a blogger. Care to demonstrate his racism? No doubt your usual response
I presume Mandela was on U.S. terrorist watch lists until 2008 for nicking the fairy off the Christmas tree.
Carrol you are an idiot. How many terrorist offences was he convicted of. Was he incarcerated on Robben Island for jaywalking?
(As the ANC went underground, Mandela became the head of the military wing of the African National Congress. In 1964, he was convicted of sabotage and treason, and wound up imprisoned until 1990.)

I suppose it all boils down to where you stand in the humanity stakes
You think this shit should be able to buy anonymity - which makes it clear where you do
Not reminiscent of allowing the survivors of Grenfell Tower to sleep rough rather than to "break the law" by allowing them to use vacant property

Typical little jimmie unfocused ignorant, insulting diatribe with zero facts to justify it as usual. Just frothing, verging on an incoherent rant

This must be your commie indoctrination to the fore again. You do not pick and choose what aspects of the law you wish to follow. You really are a backward little fellow are you not? Your basic understanding of every thing political is woefully deficient and a constant source of embarrassment to the rest of us.
Why do you constantly insist on chipping into adult discussion, when it is clear you are incapable of constructing a sentence to spell out the argument. You really are a trial and tribulation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM

Nigel
If any of us here were accused of anything - anything at all, unless we 'bought an injunction, the press woukd be free to name us, no matter what danage it did to us
Thatis reall what this should be about
I'm sure you'll pass this off as "class envy" -some regard it as injustice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 08:46 AM

On a similar note, BBC News Paul Gambaccini has secured a payout from the CPS over sexual assault charges.
Doubtless, if his name had never made it into the papers on this matter, he would have settled quietly. But his name was released, and he has spent 12 months with these allegations hanging over him.

If he had requested an injunction early on, to prevent the matter becoming freely available, I have no doubt that there would be some here claiming he was muzzling the press.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 07:04 AM

"Perhaps they do not- Who can tell?"
You've already said this - nobody knows whether Green will get away with his behaviour - it doesn't stop us from speculating on it now it has been revealed

One of my great heroes told the world what it needed to know, for which he was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment, eleven of those in solitary confinement
To the decent section of humanity he is a hero - to the Israelis he is a traitor

Recently you put up a blog from an extremist racist blogger
In it it described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and equates him with Robert Mugabe
THe world now regards Mandela as a great hero - people who put up blogs like yours believe him to be "a terrorist" (Thatcher described him as such)

I suppose it all boils down to where you stand in the humanity stakes
You think this shit should be able to buy anonymity - which makes it clear where you do
Not reminiscent of allowing the survivors of Grenfell Tower to sleep rough rather than to "break the law" by allowing them to use vacant property
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 06:38 AM

"The continued silence on the matter by the speaker and all others I find a cause for concern."
Perhaps they don't have your insight - how pompously arrogant can you get (or maybe you've just lifted it from Guido - or one of his ilk)
Jim Carroll

Perhaps they do not- Who can tell? But I suspect it is your massive chip on your shoulder and acute feeling of insecurity leading you to make your nasty little jibes.
Hardly my fault you lack the capacity to understand what is at stake.
It has been repeated often enough for you to have reached some slight glimmering of understanding. Maybe it is the bog water having a deleterious impact on you, or perhaps merely your rabid anglophobia shining through.
I also note 5 of your last six posts contain nothing germane to the thread. They are simply insults.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 06:04 AM

"I see little jimmie is provoking. Quelle surprise!"
I see your insecurity is surfacing again
Some people talk down to others because they believe themselves to be superior beings - others do so because they know they are not
Write that down and remember it
"The continued silence on the matter by the speaker and all others I find a cause for concern."
Perhaps they don't have your insight - how pompously arrogant can you get (or maybe you've just lifted it from Guido - or one of his ilk)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:35 AM

I see little jimmie is provoking. Quelle surprise!

Anyway back to the thread.
Having carried out a lot of reading I have come to the tentative conclusion that had the temporary injunction been on a criminal case, then sub judice would occur.
As it is a civil case my understanding is that it is not subject to sub judice because each discrete component of the case is regarded as a separate entity. Therefore not regarded as ongoing Despite the fact it most obviously is. Whether contempt may apply has not been denied.

As the situation has created a lot of disquiet, especially among some senior members of the legal profession I find it incredible that the speaker of the House of Lords has made no comment.
No matter how the matter is regarded the courts had unfinished business, hence the interim injunction, and Hains thwarted their definitive ruling.
The position of both houses is clear. Actions that are proceeding through the courts will not be referred to specifically by members without permission of the respective speakers.
The fact that it was a civil case has muddied the waters and shown a major procedural gap in both houses. It is worth reiterating that the previous 2 cases referred to where injunctions were broken the court had finalised it's decision. This present situation is compounded by the fact the court had yet to reach a decision. This is a far more serious situation, not helped by Hain's conflict of interest, having been( past present and future I suspect)remunerated by the same solicitors acting for the Telegraph.

No matter what the outcome there is a procedural deficiency in both houses brought to light by this premature disclosure. The continued silence on the matter by the speaker and all others I find a cause for concern. Either Parliament addresses the problem or I am sure Mr Green will go for blood and force them to. As has been already the European courts are loath to get involved but if an abuse of human rights are proven, without adequate address, They will have no other option.

    It has all the trimmings for a spectacular constitutional firework display.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:23 AM

Using typos have no place in this forum but it is you who struts your imagined superiority and constantly talks down to people, you always have - nobody else does that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:55 AM

Backwoodsman for the sake of accuracy it must be pointed out that our resident pedant started the craze. He in fact goes further and corrects grammar and use of English. I merely make a token attempt to redress the balance periodically.

Plenty of proof from his innumerable postings to prove the point.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 08:40 PM
Touché feelé, Dr Quelch. I'll let you off the extraneous full stop after "Dr" this time, as, for all I know, you may be one o' them thar yanks.

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:09 AM
"...not bringing to the students' attention" does indeed require the apostrophe. "Students'" here is the possessive case. Omitting the apostrophe betrays nothing less than a tendency towards the illiterate.

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:31 AM
People who think they know it all really annoy we who do.
Shouldn't that be "us what do?" :-)

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:40 AM
I was reprimanded by..... for saying that, "I am presently, an atheist."
Several things: your incorrect use of commas; your pretentious use of "presently" when better alternatives are available; and your apparent vacillation over whether you're an atheist or not. Apart from all that, it's fine.

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 05:08 AM
It's amusing to see that the posts of the two right-wingers here who moan about declining standards of literacy are themselves generally replete with errors of grammar and punctuation, not to speak of inelegant expression. They are also the people who sneer most at the errors of other people's posts. Ironic, eh?

Many other examples in plentiful threads!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:22 AM

This seems to be the outcome of the TORY TELEGRAPH'S researches on this man IN FULL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

"paucity"
You might have to explain what that word means - these people aren't exactly the brightest buttons on the uniform
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:38 AM

When people are reduced to criticising their opponents' spelling and grammar - people like Nitpicking Nigs and Iains the O.C. Insults - they are merely demonstrating the paucity of their arguments. Not even worth responding to, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:37 AM

"No but I did learn to spell and proofread."
Tsk, tsk - reduced to typos
Easier than ideas, I suppose
Hope nobody drives over your Trollbridge while you're sleeping -

"Mental midget" (recap)
They always say first impressions of someone are the most reliable
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:21 AM

I shall continue my nap until events further evolve. Shaw obviously has nothing of consequence to add. But that is largely the story of his life. Strict adherence to the "dogma" of the party line stifles original thought.