Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Silas said:

Give over Chaddy, he's not disclosed anything private at all has he.

Please spare us the faux outrage.

I think you've gotten the wrong end of the stick anyway. I assume he's probably referencing hiding posts of people repetitively asking you the same questions. 

Often, the mod team don't want threads spammed or derailed with the same stuff over and over. So, if people are asking the same thing we might leave the original and hide the next 3 or 4 times it's mentioned as it serves no purpose. 

Sounds fair enough right.

It was fair question Silas in my opinion. 

Mike needs to explain his actions surely? 

Also if people are on my ignore list then their questions won't be answered or even read by myself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thought I would offer an insight into the School Meal Voucher scheme being used to provide vouchers to those parents and children that need it desperately.  The scheme is provided by Edenred a co

This sermon is brought to you by the Daily Mail. Victim-blaming repugnant nonsense. 

You need to completely change your perspective. Do you think they don’t realise how dangerous is?  They don’t have other options. Of course it’s dangerous but the alternative, for most, is l

Posted Images

38 minutes ago, Silas said:

Sir Keir getting a warm welcome today from a Labour landlord. 

 

 

Can't say I enjoyed that. What a petulant man. Why did he take such a stink at Keir going into his pub?

At a time when any custom is helpful, and pubs have been crying out about the unfair treatment they have received at the hands of a Tory treasury, you'd have to imagine he has at least some thanks to give Keir for constantly campaigning for better financial aid to Covid striken business?

I say this as a man with no particular love for Keir Starmer either but that behaviour is just embarrassing

If my pub landlord acted like that I wouldn't drink there 

Edited by Dreams of 1995
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Mike needs to explain his actions surely? 

Mike's a big boy, I'm sure he can decide what he "needs" to do.

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Also if people are on my ignore list then their questions won't be answered or even read by myself. 

Exactly, hence why they are sometimes hidden as it's a waste of everyone's time, and more importantly, can ruin the enjoyment of the thread for other users. Which was my original point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I say this as a man with no particular love for Keir Starmer either but that behaviour is just embarrassing

Yep, the man seems slightly unhinged.

The articles I've seen say the man was angry at Starmer's "lack of opposition".

He's an anti-lockdowner too and thinks KS should have been fighting the Government on them. He must have missed that it was KS demanding the lockdowns about a week before each one happened. Or perhaps that's why he's angry. 🤷‍♂️

What a job being a politician is. You get out and about for first time in months, and that's what you get met with. I wouldn't take their job for footballers wages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Silas said:

Exactly, hence why they are sometimes hidden as it's a waste of everyone's time, and more importantly, can ruin the enjoyment of the thread for other users. Which was my original point. 

Fair enough Silas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderation Lead
4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

It was fair question Silas in my opinion. 

Mike needs to explain his actions surely? 

Also if people are on my ignore list then their questions won't be answered or even read by myself. 

To be fair Chaddy, people don’t have to answer your questions on the Labour Party as much as you don’t have to notice brazen corruption in the Conservative party and be outraged at name calling online at someone that voted against free school meals....

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

To be fair Chaddy, people don’t have to answer your questions on the Labour Party as much as you don’t have to notice brazen corruption in the Conservative party and be outraged at name calling online at someone that voted against free school meals....

Female MP's are routinely abused online, threats of rape and other such abhorrent comments that go beyond common decency.

Its not the first time you jumped in bed on this theme, have some self awareness, you're a bloody moderator after all. 

Its disgusting K-Hod, regardless of how they vote or send kids to private school like Diane Abbott. 

No justification whatsoever. 

Edited by Gav
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

It was fair question Silas in my opinion. 

Mike needs to explain his actions surely? 

Also if people are on my ignore list then their questions won't be answered or even read by myself. 

I'll explain, but only out of a need to be clear. It's not me yielding to yet another hypocritical demand by you (I'm yet to see you explain ANY of yours in the last 18 months):

It's fairly obvious that you are blinkered in what you think and say, and presumably do.

To the extent that you once stated you'd 'always vote Conservative no matter what'. When challenged on this with suggestions about cronyism, racism or sexism in the party, you notably just said 'but that wouldn't happen'.

Now it seemingly has for well over a year, and despite my hope upon hope, you've (true to your 'no matter what' mantra) stayed quiet on anything remotely negative about the Government, while being quick to leap on the slightest (often exact same or sometimes less offensive) transgression by non-Conservatives.

I know and love many card-carrying Tories, none of whom behave quite so shamelessly about the party's antics as the party in power (all are embarrassed, just under half of them will not vote Conservative next time despite membership).

You notably only ignore people who dare to question you. You notably claim to have answered questions despite never having done so, only ever pointing out the last time you refused to answer, at best.

I'm sorry I've ended up addressing you (believe me, there are plenty on here, left, right and centre -political pun intended) to whom I could also easily address what I've said.

However, the fact you live down the road from me, and by your own admission blindly vote for a party rife with lies and sleaze makes me fear for the future my child will grow in.

It's nothing personal against YOU as such. I'm just quite scared and angry that society is so politically tribal that we have people ignoring immorality just so they can support 'the winning side'.

My comment about hidden posts was merely a reminder that mods/admin can still see what posters have written even after we or they have hidden it. Ie: We can spot hypocrisy a LONG way off.

Edited by Mike E
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderation Lead
14 minutes ago, Gav said:

Female MP's are routinely abused online, threats of rape and other such abhorrent comments that go beyond common decency.

Its not the first time you jumped in bed on this theme, have some self awareness, you're a bloody moderator after all. 

Its disgusting K-Hod, regardless of how they vote or send kids to private school like Diane Abbott. 

No justification whatsoever. 

You’re conflating two issues to discredit me, that alone does you no favours.

An MP that voted against free school meals can’t get on her high horse about name calling at all. I despise any threats of violence to anyone and I’m absolutely disgusted that you think I would condone that behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gav said:

You’ve deleted your original post and my response, that says it all.

No justification whatsoever, quite right.

You insinuated that he might justify rape threats ffs, have a word with yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mike E said:

You insinuated that he might justify rape threats ffs, have a word with yourself.

Have a read back on this thread, ‘name calling’ is justified for MP’s who vote against feeding kids, I never said that, but one or two did Mike.

Maybe you should have a word with yourself or use the search facility before wading in.

 

Edited by Gav
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gav said:

To be honest den, he answers more questions than you do 😎

 

Ewww.

I completely refute that one Gav. A bit of whataboutery there.

To quote yourself, you might not like my answers, but they are answers.

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

Have a read back on this thread, ‘name calling’ is justified for MP’s who vote against feeding kids, I never said that, but one or two did Mike.

Maybe you should have a word with yourself or use the search facility before wading in.

Hang on, are you saying you support moves to starve children?

Are you also saying you don't want people to have the freedom to name-call people in power who choose to do that?

Edited by Mike E
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s very clear what I’m saying Mike.

Online personal abuse of any kind is unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances. In this case it was raised in parliament and abhorrent, from misogyny to threats against her and her family.

I find voting against school meals a disgrace, but I won’t be logging on to her personal Twitter account calling her names and threatening her, who does that?

High profile Black footballers seem to be racially abused online every week these days, Diane Abbott was the most abused MP online a few years ago, it’s a real problem.

Name call to us may seem insignificant, but to little Keanu who hates the world its racism and death threats......

Maybe I’m out of touch and this is the new normal......

Edited by Gav
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mike E said:

I'll explain, but only out of a need to be clear. It's not me yielding to yet another hypocritical demand by you (I'm yet to see you explain ANY of yours in the last 18 months):

It's fairly obvious that you are blinkered in what you think and say, and presumably do.

To the extent that you once stated you'd 'always vote Conservative no matter what'. When challenged on this with suggestions about cronyism, racism or sexism in the party, you notably just said 'but that wouldn't happen'.

Now it seemingly has for well over a year, and despite my hope upon hope, you've (true to your 'no matter what' mantra) stayed quiet on anything remotely negative about the Government, while being quick to leap on the slightest (often exact same or sometimes less offensive) transgression by non-Conservatives.

I know and love many card-carrying Tories, none of whom behave quite so shamelessly about the party's antics as the party in power (all are embarrassed, just under half of them will not vote Conservative next time despite membership).

You notably only ignore people who dare to question you. You notably claim to have answered questions despite never having done so, only ever pointing out the last time you refused to answer, at best.

I'm sorry I've ended up addressing you (believe me, there are plenty on here, left, right and centre -political pun intended) to whom I could also easily address what I've said.

However, the fact you live down the road from me, and by your own admission blindly vote for a party rife with lies and sleaze makes me fear for the future my child will grow in.

It's nothing personal against YOU as such. I'm just quite scared and angry that society is so politically tribal that we have people ignoring immorality just so they can support 'the winning side'.

My comment about hidden posts was merely a reminder that mods/admin can still see what posters have written even after we or they have hidden it. Ie: We can spot hypocrisy a LONG way off.

Great post. 

Tbh I struggle to see how Chaddy can be genuinely seen to trying to discuss. 

He puts people on ignore if they strongly disagree with them. (Myself included.)

As you excellently point out he has total double standards and doesn't answer questions.

Even when people answer his questions if he doesn't get the answer he likes eg 47er answering why labour have lost working class voters, he says that no one has answered his questions. 

How is this not deliberate WUM? I'd say it's stupidity but if that were the case his finger wouldn't be on the pulse so much with other parties misdemeanours and excuses. I really struggle to see how someone can have such an approach to a message board forum and that be ok. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Silas said:

Sir Keir getting a warm welcome today from a Labour landlord. 

 

 

It has been interesting to see how the mainstream media have spun this.

Take the Disgracefully biased BBC report for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RdqVxz-Izw

It tries to insinuate that the pub landlord was "unhinged" in some way and finishes with an interview from Starmer that uses suggestive language to enforce this "...(the man) questioned whether there was a pandemic at all . . "

When in actual fact (as is shown in a semi-fuller version on an earlier Sky News report) the landlord actually confronted Starmer before he went in the pub with some facts about the death statistics etc. (WHICH HAVE BEEN EDITED OUT OF THE BBC REPORT (as well as many others) as you will see in the obvious cut.

And as the slimey lawyer Starmer could not hack it, he tried to do a Boris Johnson by sidestepping the uncomfortable truth and running into the pub (had he not been thrown out one wonders whether he may have made for the nearest fridge).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuLJvY9ApE

 

For further context:

The Guardian also made a shockingly bad editing out of the facts in their video (cut is at 0.27 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roandsH_EdI

 

And many publications were running with the following video (the one here is from The Sun). Where the video is actually edited out of sync to insinuate that the landlord tried to throw Starmer out of the pub FIRST and then went back to try and reason with him. Editing out the death and economy points and leaving in Starmer's deflective "NHS comment" in order to play on the emotions of the mostly unsuspecting watchers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXYIRoAL648

 

And to think the same media often tries to paint those that call out "fake news" as being some kind of radicals. Where in truth more often that not they are the far more observant intuitive people.

The MSM is mostly a disgrace! Often very sly and subtle. At least too subtle for the usual idiots.

I am reminded of the late great American comedian George Carlin's quote:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This is also partly why UK politics is in such a state. To put a footballing slant on it you could say that the current Conservative government are akin to the Steve Kean Mafia (self serving devious shitesters) with the clueless yet subtly sly Venkys (Labour)  in main opposition.

 

 

 

Edited by Banzai
links
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderation Lead
1 hour ago, Banzai said:

It has been interesting to see how the mainstream media have spun this.

Take the Disgracefully biased BBC report for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RdqVxz-Izw

It tries to insinuate that the pub landlord was "unhinged" in some way and finishes with an interview from Starmer that uses suggestive language to enforce this "...(the man) questioned whether there was a pandemic at all . . "

When in actual fact (as is shown in a semi-fuller version on an earlier Sky News report) the landlord actually confronted Starmer before he went in the pub with some facts about the death statistics etc. (WHICH HAVE BEEN EDITED OUT OF THE BBC REPORT (as well as many others) as you will see in the obvious cut.

And as the slimey lawyer Starmer could not hack it, he tried to do a Boris Johnson by sidestepping the uncomfortable truth and running into the pub (had he not been thrown out one wonders whether he may have made for the nearest fridge).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuLJvY9ApE

 

For further context:

The Guardian also made a shockingly bad editing out of the facts in their video (cut is at 0.27 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roandsH_EdI

 

And many publications were running with the following video (the one here is from The Sun). Where the video is actually edited out of sync to insinuate that the landlord tried to throw Starmer out of the pub FIRST and then went back to try and reason with him. Editing out the death and economy points and leaving in Starmer's deflective "NHS comment" in order to play on the emotions of the mostly unsuspecting watchers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXYIRoAL648

 

And to think the same media often tries to paint those that call out "fake news" as being some kind of radicals. Where in truth more often that not they are the far more observant intuitive people.

The MSM is mostly a disgrace! Often very sly and subtle. At least too subtle for the usual idiots.

I am reminded of the late great American comedian George Carlin's quote:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This is also partly why UK politics is in such a state. To put a footballing slant on it you could say that the current Conservative government are akin to the Steve Kean Mafia (self serving devious shitesters) with the clueless yet subtly sly Venkys (Labour)  in main opposition.

 

 

 

Putting aside my finding the phrase ‘mainstream media’ and even worse the shortened ‘MSM’ really cringeworthy- are you saying there are some ‘non mainstream’ media outlets that are more trustworthy?

Honestly I’m not taking the proverbial, just curious, as I see this line of thought a lot and want to try and understand it better....

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Banzai said:

It has been interesting to see how the mainstream media have spun this.

Take the Disgracefully biased BBC report for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RdqVxz-Izw

It tries to insinuate that the pub landlord was "unhinged" in some way and finishes with an interview from Starmer that uses suggestive language to enforce this "...(the man) questioned whether there was a pandemic at all . . "

When in actual fact (as is shown in a semi-fuller version on an earlier Sky News report) the landlord actually confronted Starmer before he went in the pub with some facts about the death statistics etc. (WHICH HAVE BEEN EDITED OUT OF THE BBC REPORT (as well as many others) as you will see in the obvious cut.

And as the slimey lawyer Starmer could not hack it, he tried to do a Boris Johnson by sidestepping the uncomfortable truth and running into the pub (had he not been thrown out one wonders whether he may have made for the nearest fridge).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuLJvY9ApE

 

For further context:

The Guardian also made a shockingly bad editing out of the facts in their video (cut is at 0.27 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roandsH_EdI

 

And many publications were running with the following video (the one here is from The Sun). Where the video is actually edited out of sync to insinuate that the landlord tried to throw Starmer out of the pub FIRST and then went back to try and reason with him. Editing out the death and economy points and leaving in Starmer's deflective "NHS comment" in order to play on the emotions of the mostly unsuspecting watchers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXYIRoAL648

 

And to think the same media often tries to paint those that call out "fake news" as being some kind of radicals. Where in truth more often that not they are the far more observant intuitive people.

The MSM is mostly a disgrace! Often very sly and subtle. At least too subtle for the usual idiots.

I am reminded of the late great American comedian George Carlin's quote:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This is also partly why UK politics is in such a state. To put a footballing slant on it you could say that the current Conservative government are akin to the Steve Kean Mafia (self serving devious shitesters) with the clueless yet subtly sly Venkys (Labour)  in main opposition.

Tbf, Dr Hillary debunked most of this guy's 'facts' this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banzai said:

It has been interesting to see how the mainstream media have spun this.

Take the Disgracefully biased BBC report for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RdqVxz-Izw

It tries to insinuate that the pub landlord was "unhinged" in some way and finishes with an interview from Starmer that uses suggestive language to enforce this "...(the man) questioned whether there was a pandemic at all . . "

When in actual fact (as is shown in a semi-fuller version on an earlier Sky News report) the landlord actually confronted Starmer before he went in the pub with some facts about the death statistics etc. (WHICH HAVE BEEN EDITED OUT OF THE BBC REPORT (as well as many others) as you will see in the obvious cut.

And as the slimey lawyer Starmer could not hack it, he tried to do a Boris Johnson by sidestepping the uncomfortable truth and running into the pub (had he not been thrown out one wonders whether he may have made for the nearest fridge).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuLJvY9ApE

As anyone who has read my posts on here will know I am no fan of Starmer but I thought that he handled the situation in a dignified manner. The landlord's argument was incoherent and when someone has to resort to F'ing and blinding then you know that they are struggling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

As anyone who has read my posts on here will know I am no fan of Starmer but I thought that he handled the situation in a dignified manner. The landlord's argument was incoherent and when someone has to resort to F'ing and blinding then you know that they are struggling.

It just illustrated to me what a dangerous job being a landlord can be. “ Drinking the profits “ is an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2021 at 18:46, chaddyrovers said:

Exactly Gav. At least you do answer the questions but why won't Jim answer the questions I posed I wonder? or other Labour voters or members? Don't have the answers but then exactly me to answer their questions. 

 

Since you seem have so many Labour suporters on ignore isn't it hypocritical of you to be claiming Labour voters won't answer your questions?

They have but you apparently have not read them. How can there be a proper debate in these circumstances?

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...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.