BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM

"OOps wrong thread...sorry Jim"
No problem Ake - gives me another opportunity to post this
Maybe you can get someone to read it to you when you sober up in the morning

Your support for this monster now reaches ' collaboration" proportions
One of his employees invented the "Bowling Green Massacre" that never took place, now he has announced a Terrorist attack in Sweden that never happened
He is made - his supporters are both sick and dishonest
I hope you have no kids to bequeath tha sick world you are going to leave them
You won't respond to this of course, Quisling hero that you are and I doubt if your mate Iain will either.
Doesn't seem part of your makeup
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:12 PM

you guys have been at this stuff a fair old time..........

the second world war had very little to recommend it, but at least there was a reasonably decisive outcome.
do you think maybe there will come a point where one bloke says - dammit you're right. you win! well done old man!
and the other bloke says, well done ! a fine effort!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:41 AM

Come on Al, I hardly ever abuse Jim, in fact I have commended him on quite a few occasions.
Jim's responses to me are almost always identical, a list of untruths and misrepresentations of my position.
The last post on this thread from Jim contains four direct and mean insults.....and that's very mild he missed out the racist, fascist, homophobe bit this time. In fact, I'm beginning to think he might not like me very much.....:0(

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:42 AM

We wish, Al. It keeps being pointed out that this is a debating forum. It isn't, it is a folk music forum and the BS section is for anything else. But, if it was a debating forum each side of the debate would have once chance to make claim, then counterclaim for each side and there would be a timed section for questions. There would then be a vote and a winner would be declared. Instead what we have here is a war of attrition where someone goes on and on and on and on and on until they think everyone has had enough and that makes them the winner. Sad really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

It is not a debating forum it is a discussion forum - vast difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:20 AM

"It is not a debating forum it is a discussion forum - vast difference."
Whoops - your semantics are showing again
"The last post on this thread from Jim contains four direct and mean insults."
Not insults a summing up of your extremist and incredibly dishonest contribution.
You have just been given two examples of Trump's racist manipulation of an extremely volatile situation - once again you refuse to comment and will, no doubt, continue to support such behaviour with your silence.
Worthy of a fue harsh words in my book
This fuehrer is turning the world into a political minefield and is putting its future at risk
Happy to insult anybody who supports that.
My grandmother was once arrested for hitting Mosley with a stone - maybe she should have shaken his hand and bought him a pint.
You are what you are Ake, and until I'm proved wrong, I will continue to point it out
You may wish to appease evil - I don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM

bloody funny discussion.....its circular!

you keep calling each other names. if you really held each other in such contempt, you wouldn't give a shit what the other bloke was saying, because long ago ---you would have said to yourself....this bloke is an idiot, he's never going to say anything sensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

There were lots of Snowdrops out at the weekend, in some area down Wensleydale in particular there were vast swaths of them. Serenely beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

so you say Jim, but i reckon if you felt about Ake the same way as your Granny felt about Mosley, your answers would be more terse.

Face it You guys need each other.
Why not find your feminine side and kiss and make up.

when you're both angels, i bet God will put you together on the same cloud for all eternity - making beautiful music together.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM

Won't work Al.

1.You cannot claim as FACT that God exists.

2.You cannot claim as FACT that Angels exists.

3. As far as I am aware Jim neither plays an instrument nor sings.

Bit of a bugger really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM

There were snowdrops laid in the form of a cross in Ingleton churchyard. Bit cheesy but very pretty.

So, it is a discussion forum? Why then do people keep telling us there are certain rules that we must all follow. That is formalising things which, to my mind, is a debate. A discussion is far more informal with none of the rules of debate that keep getting wheeled out. Also, as far as I know, a discussion has no winners of losers so where does the 'You lose' phrase come in I wonder?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM

Jim,
Your favourite "Muppet"

I think and believe that "Muppet" is a term of affection not abuse.
That is how I use it, but when you claimed to be offended by it, I stopped using it at once.
That was years ago now Jim.

If you are trying to suggest that it makes me guilty of using personal abuse, it does not.
It proves my innocence of it.

I am disappointed that Joe stepped in to protect Steve, surely one of the most personal and offensive posters here, but ignored all the personal abuse I have to endure from him and his little gang including you Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

The "little gang" is a figment of your imagination (or paranoia)

I have explained at length my involvement with other posters on this site.

If truth be known I have had more personal communication with Akenaton this year than I have with Jim, Steve, Greg etc. Does that make him part of the imaginary "little gang"

The exception to this is Dave whom I actually met on Saturday. (and no we did not discuss Mudcat, we played, sang and drank, very good it was too)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM

in heaven we'll all play beautifully and sing. and in the other place too.

take my word for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

Rag,
How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

I refer to the fact that you all act in concert, for example in all suddenly talking about flowers to kill the current discussion.
You forgot to mention that you have actually met Steve too. You met with him in Cornwall I recall.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:50 AM

Yes I met Steve ........... last year. I have explained quite clearly my relationships with other posters on this forum.

However, if you read my post, I said that I had had more personal communication with Akenaton this year than with Jim, Steve, Greg etc.

The exception to this was Dave who I met on Saturday. I have no need to try and hide this from anyone.

That's because it is non of their business really.

So is Akenaton one of the imaginary "little gang"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM

`"I refer to the fact that you all act in concert, "
If we "act in concert" that makes you, Ake, Bobad and Teribus another "gang"
or maybe "Klan" or "stormtoopers"
There are people who don't know each other but whose views coincide
It is mindless twaddle to suggest there are gangs
Why don't you people grow up and behave like adults?
Rhetorical question - I know damn well why you don't - you've never left the schoolyard
And you wonder why you're the subject of so much abuse!!
You earn every word of it with your mindless behaviour and your serial lying
"I think and believe that "Muppet" is a term of affection not abuse."
You used it as a tem of abuse until you were pulled up on it - just as you did when you referred to us as "lefties" or "liars" or "ignoramouses"
You really don't have a truthful bone in your body, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

or maybe "Klan" or "stormtoopers"

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:17 AM

Jim,
"lefties" or "liars" or "ignoramouses"

Leftie is a neutral term for people of the Left, often used by themselves.
I only call someone a liar in relation to a specific, identified lie.
I do not remember ever calling anyone an ignoramous.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:48 AM

Reinventing the dictionary yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 10:52 AM

"Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater."
And another jackboot tries to kick the door in - this time one that hasn't the bottle to condemn Keith's Jewish Pact of silence claims
The Jewish people need such heroes!!#
As I said Keith - not an honest bone in tyour body
"I do not remember ever calling anyone an ignoramous."
Selective amnesia
Why doin't you all go and burn a cross somewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.

And isn't THAT rich coming from a Truth hater!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:06 PM

Raggytash - 20 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

The "little gang" is a figment of your imagination (or paranoia)

Want to examine the indications Raggy?

Should Keith A post on any thread this "little gang" somehow feel what appears to be compulsion to respond and all those responses are in lock-step. Incapable of refuting points introduced to challenge their arguments they dredge up inconsistencies going back years.

So Raggy out of this "little gang" you have actually met and know either two or three of them. The volume of your correspondence by PM with Akenaton does not mean anything, and you know it.

Bit different from me Raggy, I do not know, nor have I ever met any of the "little gang" Carroll thinks exists and thinks I am part of. On many threads that you and your "little gang" post to you will not get a single post from me, you might get contributions but not in the same lock-step fashion of your "little gang".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:23 PM

My word aren't you paranoid.

I have stated quite clearly I have met Steve ONCE, for about 2 or 3 hours a YEAR ago. We must have spent all of 5 minutes talking about Mudcat.

Dave I have met 6 or 7 times, the latest being on Saturday when we mentioned Mudcat for a least 1 minute.

The remainder of your imaginary "little gang" and it is imaginary, I have never met and am unlikely too.

You really are very insecure aren't you. Have you checked for reds under the bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

I have never met and am unlikely too.

You have a property in Ireland within reach of Jim.
He has suggested you call in.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 01:10 PM

Want to examine the indications Raggy?
Teribus, Keith, Ake Bobad - one farts, the other three stink
'The Fucked Up Four'
Don't be so frigging childish Terebus - if we have a gang, so do you.
When are you people going to debate like adults?
Stupid - stupid - stupid!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:18 PM

Just look at the posting pattern folks - you lot follow each other through threads like a flock of sheep.

Oh I asked Carroll about this "insecurity" thing, that coincidentally you could explain how and why a few of you have latched onto as a mantra-like phrase recently - needless to say, Carroll didn't respond - so let me ask you the same question, what is it I am supposed to be "insecure" about? You clowns? Hardly, I've been running circles round the lot of you for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:20 PM

Professor, I have a property in England. Are you and I likely to meet up.

Logic is not your strong point is it.

If anything I HAVE invited you out. I think I said I would buy you a meal and a few pints. I have not extended that invitation to Jim.

No offence Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

"you lot follow each other through threads like a flock of sheep."
Mindless prick - get a life
"why a few of you have latched onto as a mantra-like phrase recently"
you nean like "made up shit" has
You stupid, stupid little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

But Raggy didn't Jim invite you down to Friel's for a pint not so long ago? Don't tell me you stood him up!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:03 PM

I've just asked the Nuclear Subs thread to be closed, but it's worth mentioning in relation to "gangs" - it only takes Keith to go into one of his Islamophobic rants about "implants" and it has set Teribus goose-stepping on the same theme as if somebody flicked a switch
Hope you all put on your best Black shirt!"
You are a sick joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:14 PM

Not that I recall, he may have done but as I have no idea where Friels or Jim are located it would be meaningless.

You do seem to be clutching at straws a great deal lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM

Oh dear Jim, you've asked for the thread to be closed. Why is that? Because you have nothing to contribute on topic or off it?

As for your last couple of posts, you certainly cannot complain about "Tirades of abuse".

Still no clue about this supposed "insecurity" of mine then Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

"Why is that? "
Because there is no room for your racist shite
We have enough problems with it from Keith
"Tirades of abuse".
There's a big difference between incitement to race hatred and slagging each other off
Guess which one gets petrol poured through letterboxes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM

By the way
All bullies are insecure - that's why you try to shout people down
I used to believe it was an inferiority complex, but now I think is that bullies are inferior
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:45 PM

I have a rule regarding personal messages,
No matter how abusive they may be, I never divulge the content and try never to mention them on open forum......But since Raggytash has brought these messages into the thread I think it is in order that I clarify that they had absolutely nothing to do with the forum or the behaviour of "the thread abusing gang" (you know who you are)or any other member.
We exchanged two PM's on a matter concerning an area of Ireland quite civilly.
I want to go on record as saying that the abuse of Keith is deplorable
If there is any blame to apportion it should be to Jim, Dave, and Steve.....and Raggytash, I am disappointed that our conversation was used in such a way, I had thought better of you.

Please stop this childishness It does your cause no good at all and makes you look crass and stupid.
You say Teribus is aggressive, but he is simply responding to your abysmal behaviour, both he and Keith are decent people, kind and helpful...your agenda rules you minds you hate people you have never met over a political ideology.....Time to grow up

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:12 PM

While I'm on the subject Jim you are a real bully, you do not even attempt to make points any longer, each successive post has become a mad rant....I don't know why your labelling of members in the most disgusting of ways is allowed, it is certainly not to make a point or further the discussion, more of a bully-boy tactic in an attempt to intimidate.

Fortunately those who read you can easily discern what manner of a "man" you are, as far as I can see you have no redeeming features whatsoever. Dave and Steve are perhaps worse if that is possible, as they are manipulators releasing their spite through the strings of their puppets. They do not even believe the nonsense they promote, it has become a weird unhealthy game.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:36 PM

Apart from it being another example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" what is the manifestation of my so-called "racism"?

So far I have only faithfully transcribed official reports - nothing actually from me at all, just boring old facts uncovered during police investigations that resulted in successful convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:28 PM

Akenaton I am disappointed with your post.

I was using our, albeit brief, private communication to illustrate the idiocy of presuming there was a "little gang" operating of which I was deemed to be a member.

You, I hope, will realise no such "little gang" does or ever has existed.

If other posters on here agree with something I have posted it is purely down to the fact that, on that particular subject, they agree with my sentiments.

We do not meet on a Friday night down at the pub to discuss what each of us may, or may not post.

To suggest otherwise is paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:27 PM

The logic of 'little gang' according to Keith, or was it Teribus, I forget, is that we all act 'in accord'. The same is true for Keith, Teribus, Akenaton and Bobad. It is also true that all those mentioned are included in the term coined by Joe are also 'the usual suspects' although that seems to have escaped the notice of some.

Yes, i did meet Raggy last Saturday and we did mention mudcat although his estimate of 1 minute is quite high. If I remember rightly is was,

"*** really is a complete idiot isn't he?"
"Yes"
"How does he think he can get away with it?"
"I don't know but he isn't worth even talking about"

Maybe 15 seconds.

I have never met Steve or Jim but if I did I would be proud to shake their hands. I have PMd at least 2 of the others and had my offer of friendship thrown back in my face.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:23 AM

"Apart from it being another example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" what is the manifestation of my so-called "racism"?
Your racism has gone viral on the Nuclear Subs thread where you are attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles
You have in the past described the Irish as a moronic race who have only opposed British rule because they were persuaded to do so by the French.
Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women - you have supported him in that claim - his still persists in that sick claim.
He has also suggested that all Irish children have been brainwashed to hate Britain, broviding no description of how that "hatred" manifests itself.
Racism and cultural intolerance in both of you appears to ooze from your every pore.
Now, tell me - what "shit" have I "made up" - is this not a description of your extremist behaviour?
By the way - no police report or official survey has ever at any time has ever linked the Islamic religion with sexual deviation of any kind in Britain.
That is a figment of Keith's hate-filled invention which you are defending with your "facts".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

You specifically asked me for this so here it is:

"Your racism has gone viral on the Nuclear Subs thread where you are attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles" - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Where in the thread mentioned am I - "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles? - What I have done is detail the convictions of eleven gangs, in eleven different cities in the UK where those gangs consisted predominantly of members who came from British-Pakistani backgrounds. Those are hard facts Carroll - I am merely pointing them out to you, I am not trying to prove anything to you, or anybody else. So for you to state that I am "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles is classic Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" and a downright lie.

"You have in the past described the Irish as a moronic race who have only opposed British rule because they were persuaded to do so by the French." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Give me the post of mine where I said that. I believe that in refuting the myth that ancient Ireland was some sort of idyllic, united country completely at peace with itself prior to the arrival of the Normans I stated that it was far from it and that the so-called leaders of rebellions in Ireland from the 12th century right up until 1798 fought solely for their own advancement with the aid and at the instigation of a foreign power who just happened to be at war with England/Great Britain at the time. That statement happens to be factually correct and is borne out by recorded history in Ireland, Britain, France and Spain.

"Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women - you have supported him in that claim - his still persists in that sick claim." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Keith A has stated no such thing - He has quoted others, all members of Britain's Muslim community, who have made those suggestions - Only you and your pals deliberately chose to apply their suggestion and attribute it quite wrongly to Keith A. In addition to the three persons Keith A quoted, three of the investigations into the horrendous sex crimes perpetrated against vulnerable young girls in the eleven instances detailed voiced concerns regarding the "cultural" backgrounds of the offenders and how reluctance by the authorities due to "political correctness" allowed those gangs to operate so freely for so long. Now those people made those remarks and drew those conclusions, not Keith A and not myself. Keith A subsequently stated that given the evidence put forward by those people he believed that there was something in it. In other words he was giving an honest opinion of how he saw things based on evidence. Instead of challenging that evidence you simply chose to attack Keith A in a most deplorable fashion.

"He has also suggested that all Irish children have been brainwashed to hate Britain, broviding no description of how that "hatred" manifests itself." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

No he didn't. Again you take the words of others quoted by Keith A and then attribute them to Keith. Irish historians have claimed and proven that from 1922 onwards until the Second World War the teaching of History in Ireland was slanted and biased towards a blame culture that was aimed at blaming everything that was wrong in Ireland on the English/British and that was drummed into the children attending schools in the Republic of Ireland. To substantiate this you were given the direct quotes and references from the historians, you were directed to YouTube Documentaries of the 1950s IRA border campaign where "volunteers" openly admitted that the reason they fought was due to the indoctrination they had received at school as children - you ignored the lot, never bothered watching anything, never even acknowledged the existence of that material.

If you wish to cover any of the above to a greater degree Carroll - open separate specific threads that discuss those points and those points only. It might, just might put an end to the stream of "Made-Up-Shit" once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

Jim,
Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women

Untrue.
We are all "implanted" (not my word) to some extent by our culture, and I quoted people who know and understand that culture stating that the culture led to the abuse.

I would not know, but why would anyone, apart from racists, dismiss their view?
Why do you dismiss it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM

But why are we here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!

You sad, obsessed men.
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

" "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles? - "
Keith has made such a claim - you are backing him
Whay else would you bombard this thread with the actions of a minute handful of criiminals who just happen to come from a Muslim background
Your arguments are inseperable from those of Keith - both life members of 'The Fucked-Up Four'
That hard fact are that you are attempting to use the activities of a few hundred criminals to to back up Keith's claim of a cultural "implant" - (his words - nobody else's) in an entire cultural group
You claim on Ireland his historical and racist nonsense
Ireland has opposed outside rule for eight centuries - no outside encouragement needed
" He has quoted others, all members of Britain's Muslim community"#He has done no such thing and refuses to link to any quote he claims to have been made
He made it up himself by distorting what a former home secretary said and taking the opinions of a handful of totally unknown people and twisting them to say the exact opposite
No public person has ever claimed that "all male Pakistanis" are culturally implanted to rape children and have to resist that tendency
Had anybody ever done so, not only would they have been ejected from public life, but they would be facing charges under the incitement to race hatred laws
If Keith refuses to produce an example - why don't you prove me wrong and produce one yourself?
Keith not only said exactly what I claim he did about brainwashing Irish children - he did exactly the same as he did about Muslim Implants - took a historian out-of-context and distorted what she said.
Keith
If it is "racist" to reject what you claim a handful of Muslims said - how racist is it to reject the many thousands of Muslims who totally rejected the idea that being a Muslim does not make you a Paedophile?
The press was full of such rejections
You are a racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

Jim,
Keith has made such a claim

I have not, except in the sense that everyone is a potential anything.


Whay else would you bombard this thread with the actions of a minute handful of criiminals who just happen to come from a Muslim background

To show that there is a huge over-representation of one demographic in that specific crime.
That was the only claim I ever made.

Keith not only said exactly what I claim he did about brainwashing Irish children - he did exactly the same as he did about Muslim Implants -

No. Both claims were false, but why are we here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!
You sad, obsessed men.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"I have not, except in the sense that everyone is a potential anything."
Liar
You specified Male British Pakistanis and related it directly to paedophila
You can deny this till your teeth fall out, but your statement remains carved in stone
"To show that there is a huge over-representation"
No-one ever suggested a "huge" over-representation - that is your take on the statements
You cited Jack Straw, who put it down to "testosterone - fizzing" young people - you put it down to "a cultural implant" and then claimed Straw backed you up.
You lied in order to push your racist agenda
You have consitently claimed relatively unknown Muslims have backed you up in your "implant" claim, suggesting they were authorities, in fact they never suggested si=uch a racist scenario, nor could they and remain in their positions or not be prosecuted.
You have consistently refused to produce examples of their saying anything resembling your disgusting claim
You lied.
You suggeted Irish children had been brainwashed to hate Britain - your mate Ake has just confirmed that is what tyou said.
"Again you take the words of others quoted by Keith!"
No Irish historian has ever made such a claim - you took what Christine Kineally said, took it out of context and grossly distorted it.
At no time have you ever been able to describe how thaat "hatred for Britain" has ever manifested itself in Irish children, just as you have never been able to either qualify or quantify Labour so-called "antisemitism"
You are a racist mess
Go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

You specified Male British Pakistanis and related it directly to paedophila

No. I claimed only an over-representation in that one specific crime, not paedophilia.
I had no view on why there was an over-representation.

Asked what I believed, I said I believed it was cultural "but only because of the testimony of all those......"

We are all "implanted" to some extent by our culture, though "implanted" was not my choice of word.

I made literally thousands of posts to that thread, but you single out one because you can misrepresent its meaning.
The other thousands make a liar of you Jim.

relatively unknown Muslims have backed you up in your "implant" claim,

They were and are prominent members of that culture, and the most outspoken at the time on that crime and their community.

Now, why are you rehashing a thread from 2011 here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead you and Rag go back six years in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!
You sad, obsessed men.

If you are incapable of arguing on this thread subject, walk away or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM

No Irish historian has ever made such a claim -

Yes they have, and I quoted them doing it.

you took what Christine Kineally said, took it out of context and grossly distorted it.

Lie. I quoted in context and produced the whole article to show it in its original, intended context.
It was another historian who described it as "indoctrination" which is just another word for brainwashing.
I also quoted that in context and produced the whole article to show it in its original, intended context.