Anything Political


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant. To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family

Why do you feel the need to influence others? What is your motivation for so doing? Is it because you think you know better than they? Is it because it feeds your ego if and when you succeed?  Is it b

HSR: Col is given a 'free rein to spout his opinions' for exactly the reasons you are, only he does so with more civility.   Recently there have been a couple of attacks on the validity of t

Well we have that in common..

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

Entirely different. 

What I'm offering is verifiable, factual, but obscure info, which people can choose to factor into their decisions once they are made aware of it.

 

Like the false one you offered that the national emergency test alarm had been contracted to Rishi Sunak’s wife’s company.

Also your quote If we both live long enough, and if my 'bit', can help avert disaster, you may one day thank me for what you describe as Proselytising. (Ratherstretching the definition or proselytising in my view, but whatever’.  
No offence but you flatter yourself way too much if you seriously think you will make the slightest difference. You won’t.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2023 at 9:06 AM, letsavagoo said:

Like the false one you offered that the national emergency test alarm had been contracted to Rishi Sunak’s wife’s company.

 

That was incorrect and I held my hands up. So why drag it up? Are you also busy taking the UK National Press to task for the lies they propagated about Corbyn?

 

On 5/31/2023 at 9:06 AM, letsavagoo said:

Also your quote

If we both live long enough, and if my 'bit', can help avert disaster, you may one day thank me for what you describe as Proselytising. (Ratherstretching the definition or proselytising in my view, but whatever’.  
No offence but you flatter yourself way too much if you seriously think you will make the slightest difference. You won’t.

 

Whether I make a difference or not, is my problem.  Let me worry about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2023 at 9:04 PM, letsavagoo said:

DJ.

I think the current government are terrible. It matters not to me whether they are qualitatively different from previous administrations as I have no faith whatsoever in them or in the opposition. 

 

Well it's comforting that you find them 'terrible', but you still can't bring yourself to admit, or at least consider, that they are qualitatively different to earlier Tories.  Why is that?

It was interesting to listen to Chris Patten, an 'Old Style' Tory, on last night's Question Time.  Especially his assertion that he was 'a member of the Conservative Party when there was one.'

 

On 5/28/2023 at 9:04 PM, letsavagoo said:

 As I have mentioned previously the expenses scandal totally shattered my faith and trust in MP’s, that’s all of them whatever their flavour. I see they still claim fixed penalty charges under travel expenses and false claims are still on the menu.

 

No offence, as you say, but I see that as a convenient 'cop out'.

Of course the 'scandal' was an extremely unedifying episode. We are agreed on that. And yes, it seems that a few are still 'trying it on'. There are about as many MPs  (600+) as there were pupils at High Pavement when I was there.  Were all of those pupils scrupulously honest?  I doubt it. In any group situation we are dealing with human nature and human weakness. It's an unfortunate fact of life, and sadly 'The Rules' don't always work to keep things perfect. That said, the scandal affected all parties pretty much equally, so as a means of determining the respective 'honesty' of parties, it's not helpful and can, in effect be discounted, just as you would cancel equal terms either side of a mathematical equation.

If you really are as disenchanted with all politicians as you say you are, then why are you even engaging in this discussion?  Do you still (intend to) vote? 

I suspect that a close examination of 650 vehicles on any road, would reveal a significant number of banned, unlicensed and uninsured drivers, as well as unsafe, untaxed, unregistered vehicles etc. Has that destroyed your faith in all drivers?

 

On 5/28/2023 at 9:04 PM, letsavagoo said:

I think Labour under Blair were terrible and Starmer is hopeless seeking pathetic gimmicks to curry favour his latest being he’ll stop oil drilling in the North Sea.

 

I can't comment on your view of the Blair Govt. unless you quote specifics. As I recall, among other things Blair increased spending on Health and Education, saw through the Good Friday Agreement, introduced the Minimum Wage and much more.  I didn't like his 'Presidential Style', but until Iraq, I liked most of his achievements. Iraq was of course widely seen as a disaster, mostly because of the 'WMD' allegations which turned out to be false. And of course Blair did not attack Public Services and economic growth was steady throughout his tenure.

As I've said numerous times already, I'm no fan of Starmer, but I would take a Labour victory, or pretty much any coalition to rid us of the cancer of the current 'Conservatives'.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 9:04 PM, letsavagoo said:

Quoting the Guardian with its left wing bias doesn’t convince me of anything and how you claim with the current lack of action by the Tory’s, allowing illegal immigration on an industrial scale and doing absolutely zero about it makes them Racist, Xenophobic, Neo Nazis etc is a mystery. Quite the opposite I’d suggest.

 

Sorry to disappoint, but the main reason I often quote the Guardian is because it isn't hidden behind a 'paywall' like the Times et.al.

It's also not owned by foreign interests,  and it is in my view simply more honest and liberal in it's editorial policy. It certainly doesn't slavishly follow a 'left-wing' narrative. If you see that as 'Left Wing Bias', I'm afraid that is your problem.

From Wikipedia:

'Guardian is a British daily newspaper. It was founded in 1821 as The Manchester Guardian, and changed its name in 1959.[5] Along with its sister papers, The Observer and The Guardian Weekly, The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by the Scott Trust.[6] The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference".[7] The trust was converted into a limited company in 2008, with a constitution written so as to maintain for The Guardian the same protections as were built into the structure of the Scott Trust by its creators. Profits are reinvested in its journalism rather than distributed to owners or shareholders.[7] It is considered a newspaper of record in the UK.[8][9]'

 

Would you prefer I quoted foreign owned rags such as the execrable, lying Daily Mail, Sun etc?

 

Your analysis of Tory immigration policy is way off the mark. They have, quite simply failed to come up with working policies and systems. That failure is simply the Home Office version of the failures in ALL other Govt. Depts, which are the result of chronic underfunding, cuts, failed Neo Con ideology and ministerial incompetence.

 

Via Brexit, they have broken the working  two-way system of legal Freedom of Movement, with disastrous impact on recruitment in Health, Social Care, Horticultural and other industries, while simultaneously failing to compensate by increasing UK based worker training.

 

As for illegal immigration.  It is now a policy shambles, but also a convenient 'Dog Whistle' for the likes of Braverman to use to whip up support for the Tories from the Xenophobic and Racist elements in the UK electorate.

Simply quoting Tory Immigration Policy failure does not negate their clear far right economic and social policy ideology.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 9:04 PM, letsavagoo said:

We’ll never agree on protests but the current trend of throwing powders, paint and locking on is unacceptable. If the law needs changing to stop it them I am sure the vast majority of the public won’t see it as an ideal opportunity for Govt. to 'trial' it's new anti-protest laws but as common sense and not as you do as denying the democratic right to protest.

 

You really should read my posts more carefully. I have already stated that I agree that 'locking on' in its new forms is unacceptable, though in its earlier forms, such as those employed by the Suffragettes, it was effective and pretty harmless. And of course the use af any sort of 'missile', including paints powders or liquids, is of course Common Assault..already illegal.  My point was, and remains, that the Metropolitan Police and members of other forces in attendance at the Coronation, over-stepped the mark, by arresting both entirely innocent people, and those whose protest was lawful, on flimsy pretexts, which they subsequently admitted were wrong.  You will not change my view on that.

 

On 5/28/2023 at 9:04 PM, letsavagoo said:

 I saw the coverage recently of the police detaining a driver who had pushed a protester out the road in order to move and earn a living. Seems like the police were actively protecting the protesters doesn’t it. How does that fit in with the anti protest theory. I know it shouldn’t but when you go on about ‘democratic right to protest’ it makes me think of the old sit com Citizen Smith’

I wonder how you would react if just stop oil had prevented Mrs DJ getting to hospital and I’m sorry to hear of Mrs Cols pains and hope she feels better soon. 

 

The Driver? Common assault. As I say. Illegal. If a person is not protesting within the Law, then it is the job of the Police, not the general public, to act... or do you advocate 'vigilante' actions and people 'taking the Law into their own hands?

Eitherway, as far as I know, 'Just Stop Oil' have stated that they are re-considering the effectiveness of their 'locking on' policy.

 

If I'm 'Citizen Smith', then you are Martin Bryce, in 'Ever Decreasing Circles'. ;)

 

And of course I'd have been angry if I was delayed in an emergency, which Mrs Col's trip to hospital was not. Thanks for your concern.  I've posted on her progress in 'How's Your Day'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

That was incorrect and I held my hands up. So why drag it up?

I had let it drop as we all make mistakes. However when you posted that

What I'm offering is verifiable, factual, but obscure info, which people can choose to factor into their decisions once they are made aware of it.’

Then clearly that’s not always the case.

Wikipedia on the Guardian.

I will make no comment on the other matters you raise. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2023 at 4:45 PM, letsavagoo said:

Then clearly that’s not always the case.

 

Or.. 'then clearly, in one case I posted something which was incorrect and ackowledged the fact.'

 

On 6/2/2023 at 4:45 PM, letsavagoo said:

The Guardian – mainstream newspaper which has consistently supported centre-left politics, either reflected by the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats.

 

Are you sure that quote is from Wiki?  I've extensively searched articles on the Guardian in Wiki and cannot find that exact phrase. I found it here though..

 

https://bowlfunctions.com/qa/is-the-guardian-a-tory-or-labour-paper.html

 

Difficult to 'get behind' the origins and motivations of 'Bowl Functions', but it looks rather US oriented.

And if you continue with that article it quotes the Guardian as the 'most trusted' mainstream paper in the UK.

 

Switch back to the Wiki article and you'll find yourself reading how the Guardian has allowed contributions from Gove and other Tories. Hardly the sign of a raging Marxist entity.

You might also want to look at historic issues such as Slavery, Nazism, etc..and see which side 'Centre-Left, and 'Centre Right' papers landed....

 

But mostly, if you just focus on the phrase 'centre-left', which you quoted, not I, you'll get:

 

"Centre-left politics describes the range of left-wing political ideologies that lean closer to the political centre. Major ideologies of the centre-left include social democracy, social liberalism, progressivism, and green politics. Ideas commonly supported by the centre-left include welfare capitalism, social justice, environmentalism, liberal internationalism, and multiculturalism. Economically, the centre-left supports a mixed economy in a democratic capitalist system, often including economic interventionism, progressive taxation, and the right to unionize. Centre-left politics are contrasted with far-left politics that reject capitalism or advocate revolution."

 

Pretty much an encapsulation of how I've always described my Politics. Do you reject all of the above ideologies?

 

I don't deny that the Guardian is broadly a 'centre-left' newspaper. To me, it demonstrates that if you remove a Newspaper from the financial control of either a wealthy individual, of the Murdoch/Barclay Bros. ilk, or a Political cadre, then you will broadly see the correct analysis and prescription.

 

 

On 6/2/2023 at 4:45 PM, letsavagoo said:

I will make no comment on the other matters you raise.

 

Err.. whilst I acknowledge your right not to comment..with the exception of the matter of the 'Qualitative change', in Tory ranks, which you still seem determined to neither confirm nor deny, I was responding to other issues which you raised. Specifically:

-The 'Expenses Scandal'

-Labour under Blair

-The Guardian

-Tory immigration policy

-Protests

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile.. I'll just leave this here for anyone who is interested...

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Tory+drift+to+the+right&t=newext&atb=v356-1&ia=web

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2023 at 10:00 AM, DJ360 said:

Err.. whilst I acknowledge your right not to comment..with the exception of the matter of the 'Qualitative change', in Tory ranks, which you still seem determined to neither confirm nor deny, I was responding to other issues which you raised. Specifically:

-The 'Expenses Scandal'

-Labour under Blair

-The Guardian

-Tory immigration policy

-Protests

I wasn’t necessarily inviting comment from you rather just making a statement. If you feel you have to comment so be it.

 

On 6/2/2023 at 11:35 AM, DJ360 said:

You really should read my posts more carefully. I have already stated that I agree that 'locking on' in its new forms is unacceptable, though in its earlier forms, such as those employed by the Suffragettes, it was effective and pretty harmless.

Again I was not contradicting you. I was reinstating where I stand on protests and had read your post carefully.


Whether the Tory’s have Qualitatively changed recently is immaterial to me as if they have or haven’t as I have lost faith in the political system overall. In an ideal world there be a better alternative but for me, Labour are not that. Far, far from it. 
 

On 6/4/2023 at 10:00 AM, DJ360 said:

Or.. 'then clearly, in one case I posted something which was incorrect and ackowledged the fact.'

That posting was one I just so happened to know was wrong so mentioned it. I have no intention of fact checking all you quotes and comments so I have no idea and frankly little interest in their accuracy. So it may be you aren’t always accurate. How do we know. Because you say so isn’t enough. 

 

I don’t particularly enjoy this political discussion so will not comment frequently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. a huge Political bombshell.. Nadine Dorries has quit...  Well that's a blow for all who believe in sound government by competent people, :laugh:.  Boris Johnson's most dedicated Groupie has quit and we'll never again get to see her gazing adoringly at him as he blusters and blathers at the Dispatch Box.  Oh.. sorry.. that had already stopped...

 

In other news, it seems that Mr Johnson has also quit, after claiming that he's subject to a 'Witch Hunt' and insisting that he has never lied about anything.. ever... even when he said things which were untrue..

 

 Still, Mr Johnson has named most of his Cronies in his 'Honours List'..except, curiously, Ms. Dorries.

 

And whilst there are huge elements of comedy to all of this Tory 'infighting', I for one don't think it is at all funny that the likes of Priti Patel and Jacob Rees-Mogg, much less a bunch of faceless 'advisers', get to profit from association with a proven liar, bully and incompetent.

What does the Team think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't put Johnson's petulant but also devious resignation tactic better than this, from another site.

 

'It's his usual pathetic deflection. The Priviledges Committee report will be damning, more importantly the COVID enquiry may take forever but the segmented approach will mean UK's preparation and handling of the first wave will report earlier and Johnson will not come out well.

The austerity run down of preparation for pandemics, the missed Cobra meetings, the shaking hands with COVID patients and consideration he gave to being injected with it on TV, the crucial nine days delay in lockdown during which infected cases went from something like 190,000 to over 1.2M which gave the UK among the very worst early death rates.

That's without the care home scandal, the PPE corruption and more delayed lockdowns plus the absurd "eat out to help out" superspreading.

Plenty to remind people of exactly how effectively Boris "he's a larf" Johnson led the UK's response.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

And lest it be forgotten, while Johnson directed his bile at the chair of it, the Privileges Committee consists of four Conservative MPs, two Labour, and one SNP. So members of his own party held the majority.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, once again, I am being accused of 'dragging politics into it', when what I'm actually doing is reacting to political statements made by others, which, in this instance either unthinkingly, or deliberately, play into the racist elements of the whole migration debate.

There is a genuine debate to be had about immigration policy. Basing it on ethnicity is racist. It is THAT simple.

 

I cannot sit back and let prejudice pass without comment, whether it concerns race or any other social group.

 

Tarring a whole group with the same brush is prejudice. Simple as.

And as an aside, I have a black Son in Law who fought in Afghanistan for this country.

 

So, concerning the Nottingham stabbings, what we have is an appalling series of events leaving three dead, one critically injured and others hurt. That is all quite bad enough.

 

But, because the suspect is black and an immigrant, we have seen comments about 'who is coming in on those boats', and so on.  I'm staggered that people making such comments do not see how their own prejudices, stereotyping etc., are not only clearly racist,. but also play into the ambitions of the far right. What they are doing, is effectively saying that ethnic minority immigrants and even the wider ethnic community are a danger.. just because they are black.

 

And of course it goes deeper, because those driving the racism aren't really bothered about race OR immigration.. they are simply employing the age old tactic of using 'populist' issues to create 'bogeymen' and recruit people to their side, so that they can gain , or retain, power.

 

On wider social media I've seen much worse.

 

And I'm not surprised that the Police were slow to release details of the suspect, because given the hysteria around migration,( which is very far from the biggest problem facing the UK at present) and the 'guilt by association' mentality of many in this country, they could have had a riot on their hands.  Even now, I would not be remotely surprised to read that some poor totally innocent black person had been attacked, or worse, in some sort of twisted 'revenge' act.

 

So.. let's take a little tour around the recent history of crime in the UK...

 

Mass Shootings.

Wallasey. Elle Edwards killed, four others injured. Suspects. White British.

Plymouth 2021. Six killed, 2 injured. Murderer. White British

Moss Side, Manchester. Shotgun used during Carribean Carnival. 18 injured, no fatalities. Suspects ? Likely Carribean.

County Durham 2012. 4 killed. Gunman, White British.

Cumbria 2010. 12 killed, 11 injured. Murderer White British.

Dunblane, Perthshire 1996. 17 dead 15 injured. Murderer.. White British.

Tyne and Wear 1989. One dead, 16 Injured. Murderer, White British.

Hungerford 1987. 16 killed 15 Injured. Murderer, White British.

There are others...

 

Serial Killers.

In no particular order.

Harold Shipman. Killed hundreds. White British.

Fred and Rose West. Killed lots. White British.

Peter Sutcliffe. Killed 13 or 14. White British.

Steven Akinmurele. Nigerian. Possibly 8 victims.

Levi Bellfield 3+, including Millie Dowler. White British

Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Killed 5. White British.

John Christie. Killed 8+ and also showed up British 'justice' when Timothy Evans was hanged for his crimes.

Dale Cregan. Murdered 4, including 2 WPCs.. White British.

Many others...

 

I don't see many immigrants there...

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

John Christie. Killed 8+ and also showed up British 'justice' when Timothy Evans was hanged for his crimes.

I wouldn't be too sure about that one. In recent years, evidence has emerged to indicate that Evans was guilty. Dr Jonathan Oates' excellent book John Christie of 10 Rillington Place is meticulously researched and far less biased than Ludovic Kennedy's earlier book on the subject. Kennedy was startlingly prejudiced against Christie as any reader of the book will soon detect. However, even Evans' own mother admitted she didn't know whether her son was guilty or not and her actions after his execution are very indicative of someone who thought he was a murderer.  Christie, of course, was a serial killer but, if we are being fair, it is not acceptable to blame him for two murders he almost certainly did not commit. Kennedy, it must be remembered, wrote his book with a political motive: the abolition of capital punishment and he was spurred on by the Derby lawyer, Eddowes, a man whose obsessions with the odd corners of crime is, at times, risible (the exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald, for instance).  Evans was intellectually challenged, it is true, but he was also a thief, a pathological liar, a violent drunk and a lousy husband and father. Inside 10 Rillington Place, written in recent years by Beryl Evans' youngest brother, Peter Mylton-Thorley, sheds new and very interesting light on his sister's abusive marriage, including her fears that her husband would kill her, and is well worth a read.

 

I once accepted Evans' innocence but I have changed my mind.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

This is getting messy as I have posted on the ‘news flash’ thread. I can see where it’s gone but are these terrible murders political. Perhaps so but as many comments are in the news flash thread would it not make sense to keep it there and forgive any political content there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2023 at 8:26 AM, Jill Sparrow said:

I wouldn't be too sure about that one. In recent years, evidence has emerged to indicate that Evans was guilty. Dr Jonathan Oates' excellent book John Christie of 10 Rillington Place is meticulously researched and far less biased than Ludovic Kennedy's earlier book on the subject.

 

That's interesting Jill. I've only seen the 'classic' film with Richard Attenborough.  I purposely didn't watch the recent TV serial, because I find the whole story both distressing and depressing. I'll have to try to find time to read the book you point to.

However, if Evans was guilty of those two murders, it doesn't change the 'body count' of murders by White British killers, or diminish the point I made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough to catch up on as it is, so re: The Death Penalty.  I'm pretty much in agreement with PhilMayfield. Its deterrent value is dubious and non existent in the case of 'Suicide' terrorists or extremely agitated mentally ill people. It cannot bring back victims.

I'm not even convinced that modern Forensic tools etc., are sufficiently foolproof to 'nail' a perpetrator in all cases. We all leave an increasingly detectable 'trail' wherever we go, and I saw an interesting TV prog recently which highlighted the way that DNA evidence is still subject to correct interpretation to avoid mistakes.

 

Finally, I'd suggest that those in favour of the Death Penalty should examine their own willingness to pull the lever, switch, trigger, or whatever.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a 'quickie' on the Johnson Saga which I couldn't resist lifting from another site.

 

Quote

Johnson joins the Mail. Well, he could have been lying in The Sun...

 

:laugh:

 

And:

 

Oops.

 

Quote

Boris Johnson’s attitude towards the rules is continuing in his usual manner, if this morning’s reports (see 9.24am) that he is to join the Daily Mail as its “erudite new columnist” said to be on a “very high six-figure sum” are accurate.

Until September 2024, Johnson is required under government rules to seek advice from the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba) before taking up any new roles. But this morning, Acoba told the Guardian that they have not received an application from the former prime minister and will be writing to him on the matter.

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/jobs-after-government-rules

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Enough to catch up on as it is, so re: The Death Penalty.  I'm pretty much in agreement with PhilMayfield. Its deterrent value is dubious and non existent in the case of 'Suicide' terrorists or extremely agitated mentally ill people. It cannot bring back victims.

I'm not even convinced that modern Forensic tools etc., are sufficiently foolproof to 'nail' a perpetrator in all cases. We all leave an increasingly detectable 'trail' wherever we go, and I saw an interesting TV prog recently which highlighted the way that DNA evidence is still subject to correct interpretation to avoid mistakes.

 

Finally, I'd suggest that those in favour of the Death Penalty should examine their own willingness to pull the lever, switch, trigger, or whatever.

It is a totally pointless exercise debating the death penalty as it will never happen here. I personally wold like to see the death penalty for certain offenders. The likes of Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady, Donald Nelson etc.

Judges now seem to have difficulty sentencing even the most abhorrent offenders to prison at all so forget any death penalty. Colin Pitchfork is due to be released I note and if it were my granddaughters he’d raped and murdered, yes, I’d pull the lever for the long drop. In fact I make it a short drop as that’s slower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I've only seen the 'classic' film with Richard Attenborough.  I purposely didn't watch the recent TV serial, because I find the whole story both distressing and depressing.

Richard Attenborough only accepted the part because he had the same political agenda as Ludovic Kennedy: the abolition of the death penalty. The 1971 film which was, gruesomely, filmed in Rillington Place immediately before it was demolished claimed, in its opening credits, to be based on Kennedy's book and he was a consultant to the director.  Actually, the film deviated wildly from the book and the book's accuracy is highly questionable.

 

The TV adaptation of a few years ago I didn't watch but a colleague, knowing of my interest in the case, regaled me with its portrayed events each day after it was broadcast.  The only disturbing thing about it was the number of character defamations presented as facts. For instance, Ethel Christie operating as an abortionist. Apparently, when you're dead, people can slander you with impunity. Ethel wasn't an angel but she certainly wasn't an abortionist.

 

I have always been against capital punishment for the simple reason that there is usually always a certain degree of doubt, despite what the jury may find. I've always been against abortion, too, because I believe it is wrong to kill. There will always be people, like the late Paul Foot, who seem to think that no one is ever guilty of anything. As the late and much reviled Valerie Storie said, no one wants to believe that their son is a murderer but being in denial of it doesn't change the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jill Sparrow :  interestingly I remember reading a book a while ago, in which Christie eventually claimed responsibility for Beryl Evans death, but not the baby, he never acknowledged involvement in her disappearance.

 

 Also, wrong thread, but I have the same affliction as your sister.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DJ360: with your evangelical zeal for politics, how do you know you are right?

 

Have you ever considered you may not be correct in all matters.

 

In your tour of recent history of serious crime, you seem selective in your lists, therefore thus so hence amplifying your argument.

 

As regards immigration, the demographics of this country are being altered.

Labour would be worse, several of their MP’s helped prevent a plane returning some near do wells back to their own country. One of these has since committed a murder.

 

 The leader of the Labour Party has difficulties in identifying a woman.

 

We are doomed! doomed!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...