FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Reform candidate said UK should have been neutral against Hitler
Reform candidate said UK should have been neutral against Hitler
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel" I’m afraid the actual idiom is "One bad apple spoils the barrel," Tom. The original quote from Benjamin Franklin is "The rotten apple spoils his companion". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel I’m afraid the actual idiom is "One bad apple spoils the barrel," Tom. The original quote from Benjamin Franklin is "The rotten apple spoils his companion"." Not in Tom's barrel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel I’m afraid the actual idiom is "One bad apple spoils the barrel," Tom. The original quote from Benjamin Franklin is "The rotten apple spoils his companion"." Don't bother, even if it 100% fact it will get put down as BBC left wing propaganda. Some people believe what they want on the right wingers sorry fab swingers forum  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel I’m afraid the actual idiom is "One bad apple spoils the barrel," Tom. The original quote from Benjamin Franklin is "The rotten apple spoils his companion". Don't bother, even if it 100% fact it will get put down as BBC left wing propaganda. Some people believe what they want on the right wingers sorry fab swingers forum "Is this BBC left wing propaganda? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the BBC website: “ A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two. Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Reform have backed him and he remains their candidate." Who does this reflect badly on, Hitler or Reform? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel" They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel" But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote with your feet guys... " Wearing Jackboots apparently! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel I’m afraid the actual idiom is "One bad apple spoils the barrel," Tom. The original quote from Benjamin Franklin is "The rotten apple spoils his companion". Don't bother, even if it 100% fact it will get put down as BBC left wing propaganda. Some people believe what they want on the right wingers sorry fab swingers forum
Is this BBC left wing propaganda?"Well according to the daily mail comments (lol) Its a witchunt and a smear campaign as the left are now scared of reform taking over. OF course we have the usual He has the right to free speach He's telling it like it is A lot of whataboutism Oh and one comment about one bad egg not spoiling the dozen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel I’m afraid the actual idiom is "One bad apple spoils the barrel," Tom. The original quote from Benjamin Franklin is "The rotten apple spoils his companion". Don't bother, even if it 100% fact it will get put down as BBC left wing propaganda. Some people believe what they want on the right wingers sorry fab swingers forum
Is this BBC left wing propaganda?"Report in the telegraph too.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote with your feet guys... " Goose step to the polling station? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel?" What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel I’m afraid the actual idiom is "One bad apple spoils the barrel," Tom. The original quote from Benjamin Franklin is "The rotten apple spoils his companion". Don't bother, even if it 100% fact it will get put down as BBC left wing propaganda. Some people believe what they want on the right wingers sorry fab swingers forum
Is this BBC left wing propaganda?
Well according to the daily mail comments (lol) Its a witchunt and a smear campaign as the left are now scared of reform taking over. OF course we have the usual
He has the right to free speach
He's telling it like it is
A lot of whataboutism
Oh and one comment about one bad egg not spoiling the dozen"In fairness to Reform and the Daily Mail readers. Backing Hitler and being a raging misogynist isn't going to do anything to change their prospects on polling day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists?" It's truly a mystery.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists? It's truly a mystery.. " As mysterious as what about Labour attracted so many anti-semitists under Corbyn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists? It's truly a mystery.. As mysterious as what about Labour attracted so many anti-semitists under Corbyn." Why do you think Labour attracted so many anti-semites under Corbyn? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists? It's truly a mystery.. As mysterious as what about Labour attracted so many anti-semitists under Corbyn." I'm not a labour party member so no idea? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists? It's truly a mystery.. As mysterious as what about Labour attracted so many anti-semitists under Corbyn. Why do you think Labour attracted so many anti-semites under Corbyn?" Both the case of Reform and Labour under Corbyn aren't really mysterious. Politicians with extreme views tend to look for parties which they believe align with their views. Whether the party's views are really aligned with the views of these extremist politicians depends on how the party reacts to the incident. It's a question of whether these people get sacked or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists? It's truly a mystery.. As mysterious as what about Labour attracted so many anti-semitists under Corbyn. Why do you think Labour attracted so many anti-semites under Corbyn?" Corbyn and a lot of his supports are anti-capitalist. The most powerfull familes in history the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds which were the first elite banking cartel were both Jewish. Some pollitical activist group painted an anti capital muiral in the tower hamlets back in 2012 featuring them. It was quickly removed but Corbyn was against it as he claimed it went against freedom of expression. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the BBC website: “ A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two. Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Reform have backed him and he remains their candidate." Wow and what about the other political parties have you got any gutter press on them ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. " I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the BBC website: “ A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two. Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Reform have backed him and he remains their candidate. Wow and what about the other political parties have you got any gutter press on them ?" Oh theres always dirt being printed on politions. Recently we've had Sunak leaving the D day parade early, we've had Angela Raynor's Housegate to name a few. So does this excuse Ian Gribbin's comments? Ladies and Gentlemen I give you whataboutism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel" Can do if left in the barrel to spread the rot Reform wouldn't get my vote anyway but anyone who thinks Hitler shouldn't have been destroyed is a cunt Death to authoritarians | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the BBC website: “ A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two. Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Reform have backed him and he remains their candidate. Wow and what about the other political parties have you got any gutter press on them ? Oh theres always dirt being printed on politions. Recently we've had Sunak leaving the D day parade early, we've had Angela Raynor's Housegate to name a few. So does this excuse Ian Gribbin's comments? Ladies and Gentlemen I give you whataboutism " Farage's answer was the same 'what about something else'. I think this chap is just demonstrating that if you're prepared to vote for a candidate who backed Hitler, and/or a political party that doesn't think science is real. You can easily be fooled by some good old fashioned "look at that distraction over there". And he's right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have!" This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech." What are you not allowed to say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say?" You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best." Interesting that you have latched on to that but not the other stuff from the OP… " Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care"" I’d say those comments are demonstrably offensive to half the population! Regarding Britain being neutral during WWII, well that is a matter of opinion but can only really apply to what was known at the time before the discovery of the Nazi atrocities. Once someone is aware of the holocaust then it ceases to be purely an opinion and becomes hugely offensive. As he has the benefit of 80 years of history, then his position becomes offensive. Freedom of speech does not equate to “I can absolutely anything about anything or anyone without consequences”. Frankly in this case it is highly bad taste at best! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best. Interesting that you have latched on to that but not the other stuff from the OP… Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care" I’d say those comments are demonstrably offensive to half the population! Regarding Britain being neutral during WWII, well that is a matter of opinion but can only really apply to what was known at the time before the discovery of the Nazi atrocities. Once someone is aware of the holocaust then it ceases to be purely an opinion and becomes hugely offensive. As he has the benefit of 80 years of history, then his position becomes offensive. Freedom of speech does not equate to “I can absolutely anything about anything or anyone without consequences”. Frankly in this case it is highly bad taste at best!" *say anything… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best." Who said you're now allowed? Who has been banned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best." But Gribbin has said it, and not faced any consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best. Interesting that you have latched on to that but not the other stuff from the OP… Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care" I’d say those comments are demonstrably offensive to half the population! Regarding Britain being neutral during WWII, well that is a matter of opinion but can only really apply to what was known at the time before the discovery of the Nazi atrocities. Once someone is aware of the holocaust then it ceases to be purely an opinion and becomes hugely offensive. As he has the benefit of 80 years of history, then his position becomes offensive. Freedom of speech does not equate to “I can absolutely anything about anything or anyone without consequences”. Frankly in this case it is highly bad taste at best!" There have been plenty of mass murderers that Britain didn’t go to war with. Not only did we not go to war with Stalin we were actually on the same side as the brute! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well being neutral in WW2 does not make anyone racist. Were the Swiss neutral? " Staying neutral at the time in ignorance of what was really happening to Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, people with disabilities, is understandable. Having that belief 80 years later in full knowledge of the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis is simply disgraceful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best. Interesting that you have latched on to that but not the other stuff from the OP… Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care" I’d say those comments are demonstrably offensive to half the population! Regarding Britain being neutral during WWII, well that is a matter of opinion but can only really apply to what was known at the time before the discovery of the Nazi atrocities. Once someone is aware of the holocaust then it ceases to be purely an opinion and becomes hugely offensive. As he has the benefit of 80 years of history, then his position becomes offensive. Freedom of speech does not equate to “I can absolutely anything about anything or anyone without consequences”. Frankly in this case it is highly bad taste at best! There have been plenty of mass murderers that Britain didn’t go to war with. Not only did we not go to war with Stalin we were actually on the same side as the brute! " We were only on the same side from 1941-1945 via an alliance of convenience and a mutual enemy. Soon after that the nuclear threat of mutual destruction headed off any form of conflict beyond proxy wars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say?" Plenty. 2003 communications act and 2006 racial and religious hatred acts. Two laws which have been masked under the name of good will but intentionally worded so vaguely that gives police the rights to take action based on their discretion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why do you think Labour attracted so many anti-semites under Corbyn?" Because of the historic antisemitic tropes about Jews controlling all the money etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best." By "allowed to say", it means freedom to say something without the government taking legal action on you or other people acting violent towards you. You have the right to say one should not have the right to say something. It's not really that hard to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well being neutral in WW2 does not make anyone racist. Were the Swiss neutral? Staying neutral at the time in ignorance of what was really happening to Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, people with disabilities, is understandable. Having that belief 80 years later in full knowledge of the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis is simply disgraceful." This.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why do you think Labour attracted so many anti-semites under Corbyn? Because of the historic antisemitic tropes about Jews controlling all the money etc." Ironically Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky were Jews | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the BBC website: “ A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two. Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Reform have backed him and he remains their candidate." Well this sponging gender thinks Ian is a dick. Does he also think women shouldn't work in health care?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists?" Populist anger and the media stirring up blame. It's easier to blame immigrants and other minority groups because that's what people see more frequently. They don't really perceive the sheer amount of wealth being misdirected into the pockets of people with corporate interests. People generally don't realise they have more in common with the immigrant / single parent / mentally unwell / minority group, than they do with the people at the head of the corporations. Sadly, the tactics of 'divide and conquer' wins votes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote with your feet guys... " Pen and paper actually | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists?" And sexists if Ian is typical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists? Populist anger and the media stirring up blame. It's easier to blame immigrants and other minority groups because that's what people see more frequently. They don't really perceive the sheer amount of wealth being misdirected into the pockets of people with corporate interests. People generally don't realise they have more in common with the immigrant / single parent / mentally unwell / minority group, than they do with the people at the head of the corporations. Sadly, the tactics of 'divide and conquer' wins votes." It's very effective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists?" probably the same thing that attracts so many anti semites to labour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? You aren’t allowed to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to say that Britain adopting a more neutral position in World War II would have been a better option. It’s very offensive and I think it actually been banned by someone who knows best. But Gribbin has said it, and not faced any consequences." 'Consequences` The chilling word of the left... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists?probably the same thing that attracts so many anti semites to labour" But you can do a course and then stand again... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not calling out wankers for wanting to avoid conflict with Hitler and Nazis looking back over 80years - the chilling threat of proto-fascists! " So started reading this thread,saw many replies so have scrolled to the end. What's the final verdict? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not calling out wankers for wanting to avoid conflict with Hitler and Nazis looking back over 80years - the chilling threat of proto-fascists! So started reading this thread,saw many replies so have scrolled to the end. What's the final verdict? " Some think this is championing freedom of speech others that freedom of speech does not mean you can say absolutely anything, especially when 80 years of hindsight means you cannot plead ignorance! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not calling out wankers for wanting to avoid conflict with Hitler and Nazis looking back over 80years - the chilling threat of proto-fascists! So started reading this thread,saw many replies so have scrolled to the end. What's the final verdict? Some think this is championing freedom of speech others that freedom of speech does not mean you can say absolutely anything, especially when 80 years of hindsight means you cannot plead ignorance!" Well that's cleared that up 
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not calling out wankers for wanting to avoid conflict with Hitler and Nazis looking back over 80years - the chilling threat of proto-fascists! So started reading this thread,saw many replies so have scrolled to the end. What's the final verdict? " Reform needs to drop a candidate because some people who don’t vote Reform say so. Hitler was bad. Women definitely aren’t scroungers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not calling out wankers for wanting to avoid conflict with Hitler and Nazis looking back over 80years - the chilling threat of proto-fascists! So started reading this thread,saw many replies so have scrolled to the end. What's the final verdict? " That Ian Gribbin probably won't get elected in Bexhill and Battle (wonder if he's single/divorced?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the BBC website: “ A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two. Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Reform have backed him and he remains their candidate." So Reform really are vying to be the official opposition. Getting all the ingredients ready including someone with very inappropriate past comments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s about time we had a Commission of the Great and Good set up to set the parameters for what opinions candidates are allowed to express at elections. This is another example of candidates going about saying what they think, and giving people the chance to vote for them or not. Clearly a complete perversion of democracy. I actually agree. I would far rather politicians wore their ideologies and beliefs in clear view. So people know where they stand. Far mor insidious having pressure/interest groups within more mainstream parties skewing the priorities and ideology of that party secretly from within. If you are a Fascist or a Communist them be honest and up front about it and let’s see how much support you really have! This argument has to apply outside politicians too. This is why I believe UK has to do better when it comes to free speech in general. We definitely need something akin to the first amendment in the US. But alas... Both Labour and Tories don't want people to have free speech. What are you not allowed to say? Plenty. 2003 communications act and 2006 racial and religious hatred acts. Two laws which have been masked under the name of good will but intentionally worded so vaguely that gives police the rights to take action based on their discretion." So what are you prevented from saying that you’d like to be able to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe a point with ww2 comment, we judge that era from 90 years on wards. It wasn't long after ww1, which was about exactly? As in effecting the average man in the street, yet had thousands signing up after patriotic duty? Go figure that one ... Why did they sign up? Government propaganda, civic duty? Or getting called a coward ... have a think!" it looks like they are trying to spin what he said as some kind of analysis of the thinking at the time. He said "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Bit reform are spinning as "His historical perspective of what the UK could have done in the 30s was shared by the vast majority of the British establishment including the BBC of its day, and is probably true." That "is probably true" is open to interpretation. But totally him arguing a different perspective in long distance debate. And rememvee this was from an archaeological digging trip. He literally held this view year and year ago. Christian forgiveness people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe a point with ww2 comment, we judge that era from 90 years on wards. It wasn't long after ww1, which was about exactly? As in effecting the average man in the street, yet had thousands signing up after patriotic duty? Go figure that one ... Why did they sign up? Government propaganda, civic duty? Or getting called a coward ... have a think!it looks like they are trying to spin what he said as some kind of analysis of the thinking at the time. He said "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Bit reform are spinning as "His historical perspective of what the UK could have done in the 30s was shared by the vast majority of the British establishment including the BBC of its day, and is probably true." That "is probably true" is open to interpretation. But totally him arguing a different perspective in long distance debate. And rememvee this was from an archaeological digging trip. He literally held this view year and year ago. Christian forgiveness people. " Hitlers offer was always there for a while before the war, we still had the empire all but waning. Iirc Hitler spoke with Edward about putting him back on the thrown, then throw in the case of hess. Plenty out there to look into. Look at it a different way, if chamberlain had acted in a Churchill or trump way would the war had started? But in hindsight look at the way the ww1 ended | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people"" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is gbis character in your constituency. If no. Pick your local candidate and move along. Nothing to see here " Don’t think I will no! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel They've already deselected two others for racist comments.. How many more are there in the barrel? What is it about Reform UK that attracts so many racists?" Well farage is a champion “dog-whistler”…… come by!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker!" Hindsight at it's best | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best" I agree Tom. Hindsight has shown the populist views of the 30s may not have been the best policy. And i for one commend the fella for being consistent in supporting populism come what may. Unlike the rest of his snowflake part who are now trying to justify supporting a non populist view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best" Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog!" Why shouldn’t we have stayed neutral? We stayed neutral when mass murders were being committed in China, the USSR, Cambodia etc. Why be selective about it? Who appointed the UK to be the world’s volunteer police? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog! Why shouldn’t we have stayed neutral? We stayed neutral when mass murders were being committed in China, the USSR, Cambodia etc. Why be selective about it? Who appointed the UK to be the world’s volunteer police?" In 1939? Because we had a treaty with Poland. These other events you talk about happened when? Had the World changed at that stage? What was one of the primary drivers of that change? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog! Why shouldn’t we have stayed neutral? We stayed neutral when mass murders were being committed in China, the USSR, Cambodia etc. Why be selective about it? Who appointed the UK to be the world’s volunteer police?" the decision to enter the war was more than just being the world's police force. Regardless of views on doing the right thing, this was on our doorstep. But if you take that view we shouldnt get involved, why stand for a party that wants to increase defence spending? Isn't that a waste of money for a country that hasn't had war on it's shores in centuries ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are defending someone for saying we should’ve stayed neutral and made a deal with Hitler. People also say that fascism couldn’t possibly take hold in the UK, like it did in Germany." That's why Reform/BNP/EDL/UKIP are so popular now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog! Why shouldn’t we have stayed neutral? We stayed neutral when mass murders were being committed in China, the USSR, Cambodia etc. Why be selective about it? Who appointed the UK to be the world’s volunteer police?the decision to enter the war was more than just being the world's police force. Regardless of views on doing the right thing, this was on our doorstep. But if you take that view we shouldnt get involved, why stand for a party that wants to increase defence spending? Isn't that a waste of money for a country that hasn't had war on it's shores in centuries ? " Also I think some posters may want to brush up on their history. Britain declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland (despite having already marched into other territories belonging to other countries with no reprisal). Germany was the aggressor and Britain reacted and honoured treaties with our allies. Saying “why not attack other countries for mass murder” demonstrates a lack of understanding on the reasons for WWII. It was known the Nazis were persecuting Jews etc but that was not why we went to war. However, turns out we did the right thing for multiple reasons. This Reform chap has now apologised unreservedly, so that’s ok. Wonder if his views have actually changed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog! Why shouldn’t we have stayed neutral? We stayed neutral when mass murders were being committed in China, the USSR, Cambodia etc. Why be selective about it? Who appointed the UK to be the world’s volunteer police?the decision to enter the war was more than just being the world's police force. Regardless of views on doing the right thing, this was on our doorstep. But if you take that view we shouldnt get involved, why stand for a party that wants to increase defence spending? Isn't that a waste of money for a country that hasn't had war on it's shores in centuries ? Also I think some posters may want to brush up on their history. Britain declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland (despite having already marched into other territories belonging to other countries with no reprisal). Germany was the aggressor and Britain reacted and honoured treaties with our allies. Saying “why not attack other countries for mass murder” demonstrates a lack of understanding on the reasons for WWII. It was known the Nazis were persecuting Jews etc but that was not why we went to war. However, turns out we did the right thing for multiple reasons. This Reform chap has now apologised unreservedly, so that’s ok. Wonder if his views have actually changed?" Were you going to vote for Reform then before this chap said the “wrong thing”? What is being achieved by having multiple political parties standing for election who can only express opinions approved by some “centrist” media-political dictatorship and outrage mob? Does this make people more or less likely to engage with the process? Is this censorious atmosphere not likely to lead to shallow idiotic group think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog! Why shouldn’t we have stayed neutral? We stayed neutral when mass murders were being committed in China, the USSR, Cambodia etc. Why be selective about it? Who appointed the UK to be the world’s volunteer police?the decision to enter the war was more than just being the world's police force. Regardless of views on doing the right thing, this was on our doorstep. But if you take that view we shouldnt get involved, why stand for a party that wants to increase defence spending? Isn't that a waste of money for a country that hasn't had war on it's shores in centuries ? Also I think some posters may want to brush up on their history. Britain declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland (despite having already marched into other territories belonging to other countries with no reprisal). Germany was the aggressor and Britain reacted and honoured treaties with our allies. Saying “why not attack other countries for mass murder” demonstrates a lack of understanding on the reasons for WWII. It was known the Nazis were persecuting Jews etc but that was not why we went to war. However, turns out we did the right thing for multiple reasons. This Reform chap has now apologised unreservedly, so that’s ok. Wonder if his views have actually changed? Were you going to vote for Reform then before this chap said the “wrong thing”? What is being achieved by having multiple political parties standing for election who can only express opinions approved by some “centrist” media-political dictatorship and outrage mob? Does this make people more or less likely to engage with the process? Is this censorious atmosphere not likely to lead to shallow idiotic group think?" Not at all but while I would expect both right and left wing to be able to openly discuss their ideology, I think few people can say with a straight face we were wrong to go to war with Nazi Germany! Can they? That is simply unbelievable bad taste and completely diminishes the utter horror and suffering millions of people were subjected to by the Nazis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People trying to find the dirt on another is nothing new in politics. So an MP has an alternative view. Who cares? " Lol keep telling yourself that! An alternative view! Hilarious! So do you agree with his view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People trying to find the dirt on another is nothing new in politics. So an MP has an alternative view. Who cares? " You should care if your comment is a serious one of course? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom is more concerned with potholes. Just fix the bloody things.. " Then why spend so much effort posting im this thread?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So he said: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people" Well so sorry but I think stopping Hitler and the Nazis at all cost was 100% the right thing to do. It demonstrates a complete lack of actual historical knowledge. Hitler publicly stated admiration for Britain and her Empire (and justified it via our Anglo-Saxon ancestry). But his aspirations were to create a satellite state subservient to Nazi Germany in the long run. A Britain controlled by Fascists. I suspect all the Jews, Gypsies and disabled people in the UK might have had a different view. And hey, who cares if 6 million Jews and millions of other people just vanished across Europe huh? Not our problem! No need to even wonder about them! What a wanker! Hindsight at it's best Lol he said it from a modern standpoint but they are trying to be revisionist. The nature of the Nazis was already clear by 1939. The Jews may not yet have entered the final solution (or anyone have conceived the Nazis would go THAT far) but they had been ghettoised and had been removed from the local neighbourhoods and forbidden from owning businesses or work in public sector jobs. Many had already fled Germany before that could happen. Many came to the UK…much to the annoyance of The Daily Mail (who supported Mosley and his British Fascists) running headlines about stopping these Jewish immigrants from pouring into the country. But yeah, Britain should have stayed neutral and become Hitler’s lapdog! Why shouldn’t we have stayed neutral? We stayed neutral when mass murders were being committed in China, the USSR, Cambodia etc. Why be selective about it? Who appointed the UK to be the world’s volunteer police?" Chamberlain wanted to stay neutral. But then Hitler "stabbed him in the back" by invading poland and not keeping to the agreed regaining of Sudetenland. You still think we should have kowtow to a liar and bully. Hitler had no intention of stopping. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom is more concerned with potholes. Just fix the bloody things.. Then why spend so much effort posting im this thread? "Tom likes to stir the pot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are defending someone for saying we should’ve stayed neutral and made a deal with Hitler. People also say that fascism couldn’t possibly take hold in the UK, like it did in Germany." If Hitler had played his hand at a slower pace, Fascism was on the rise here, things may have been different. Fortunately he was greedy and invaded poland. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. " But you’d be surprised by how many still think the same way or have sympathy for what the Nazis stood for. If we stop learning from the past we are destined to continue to make the same mistakes in the future. Never forget! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. " is that Putin fella dead yet ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? " I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes." As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They did a survey of young people and very few knew what D Day was all about and even fewer had even heard about the Falklands. The biggest learn from HIstory is that we do not learn from it so why be arsed to remember it. Let's concentrate on the hear and now. Not WW1, Not WW2, Not Brexit, Not Mexit or any other exit you can think of. If Hitler is alive in South America then do be it . He won't be doing anyone harm at his age" Thank you for illustrating my point. Only idiots fail to learn from the past. It tells us all we need to know about humanity and where we might go in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They did a survey of young people and very few knew what D Day was all about and even fewer had even heard about the Falklands. The biggest learn from HIstory is that we do not learn from it so why be arsed to remember it. Let's concentrate on the hear and now. Not WW1, Not WW2, Not Brexit, Not Mexit or any other exit you can think of. If Hitler is alive in South America then do be it . He won't be doing anyone harm at his age Thank you for illustrating my point. Only idiots fail to learn from the past. It tells us all we need to know about humanity and where we might go in the future." Then the whole of mankind are idiots | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else!" Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They did a survey of young people and very few knew what D Day was all about and even fewer had even heard about the Falklands. The biggest learn from HIstory is that we do not learn from it so why be arsed to remember it. Let's concentrate on the hear and now. Not WW1, Not WW2, Not Brexit, Not Mexit or any other exit you can think of. If Hitler is alive in South America then do be it . He won't be doing anyone harm at his age Thank you for illustrating my point. Only idiots fail to learn from the past. It tells us all we need to know about humanity and where we might go in the future. Then the whole of mankind are idiots " No not all but pretty clear many are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They did a survey of young people and very few knew what D Day was all about and even fewer had even heard about the Falklands. The biggest learn from HIstory is that we do not learn from it so why be arsed to remember it. Let's concentrate on the hear and now. Not WW1, Not WW2, Not Brexit, Not Mexit or any other exit you can think of. If Hitler is alive in South America then do be it . He won't be doing anyone harm at his age" im both polls I can see the national average os only about 10pc higher than the young peiple. But hey ho. Here and now is the GE and deciding who we want to represent. So feels relevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered." LOL oh you’re one of them!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered." Macron was fairly recently re-elected | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered. Macron was fairly recently re-elected "Macron may be up to his old tricks here... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They did a survey of young people and very few knew what D Day was all about and even fewer had even heard about the Falklands. The biggest learn from HIstory is that we do not learn from it so why be arsed to remember it. Let's concentrate on the hear and now. Not WW1, Not WW2, Not Brexit, Not Mexit or any other exit you can think of. If Hitler is alive in South America then do be it . He won't be doing anyone harm at his age" Do the maths, Hitler was born in 1889
And rumoured to have had Parkinsons.
Unless he's found the fountain of youth... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered. Macron was fairly recently re-elected "Not as recently as Putin. Though definitely more recently than Zelensky. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think the FSB has been at work again!!!!" To be expected, have missed them since 2016/19.. Plus the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered. Macron was fairly recently re-elected
Not as recently as Putin.
Though definitely more recently than Zelensky."You stated he was on his way out, I'm pointing out that is untrue! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered. Macron was fairly recently re-elected
Not as recently as Putin.
Though definitely more recently than Zelensky.
You stated he was on his way out, I'm pointing out that is untrue!"Ohhhhh hang on, he's called a snap election... weird. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered. Macron was fairly recently re-elected
Not as recently as Putin.
Though definitely more recently than Zelensky.
You stated he was on his way out, I'm pointing out that is untrue!
Ohhhhh hang on, he's called a snap election... weird."not the presidency. You're point os valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. is that Putin fella dead yet ? I think Putin may well outlast most of his Western foes. As long as he stays away from windows and keeps that massive table between him and everyone else! Macron - on his way out Scholz - on his way out Sunak - on his way out Biden - on his way out Putin’s reach is indeed long. Criticise or attack him and your days are numbered. Macron was fairly recently re-elected
Not as recently as Putin.
Though definitely more recently than Zelensky.
You stated he was on his way out, I'm pointing out that is untrue!
Ohhhhh hang on, he's called a snap election... weird.not the presidency. You're point os valid. "You can tell I didn't bother with the full info then, from googling. What am I like  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. " Would be embarrassing for him if he was still alive though. Imagine being aligned with Reform.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. Would be embarrassing for him if he was still alive though. Imagine being aligned with Reform. "He’d be far more comfortable in the Labour Party. No shortage of fellow Jew Baiters there. He’d be delighted to see so many people continuing his excellent work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. Would be embarrassing for him if he was still alive though. Imagine being aligned with Reform.
He’d be far more comfortable in the Labour Party. No shortage of fellow Jew Baiters there. He’d be delighted to see so many people continuing his excellent work."What a silly thing to say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. Would be embarrassing for him if he was still alive though. Imagine being aligned with Reform.
He’d be far more comfortable in the Labour Party. No shortage of fellow Jew Baiters there. He’d be delighted to see so many people continuing his excellent work.
What a silly thing to say "Hint of irony or sarcasm maybe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. Would be embarrassing for him if he was still alive though. Imagine being aligned with Reform.
He’d be far more comfortable in the Labour Party. No shortage of fellow Jew Baiters there. He’d be delighted to see so many people continuing his excellent work."'Baiters'.. Oh the irony..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t!" but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why worry about something that is pretty much consigned to the history books. What someone might or might not have said decades ago. If Hitler did this or Hitler did that. This might come as a surprise to some but Hitler is probably dead. Would be embarrassing for him if he was still alive though. Imagine being aligned with Reform.
He’d be far more comfortable in the Labour Party. No shortage of fellow Jew Baiters there. He’d be delighted to see so many people continuing his excellent work.
What a silly thing to say
Hint of irony or sarcasm maybe.
"Nope it was a silly thing for him to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm" Well we definitely know the tories have. It wasn't that long ago it appeared every week a sleaze bucket was outed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm Well we definitely know the tories have. It wasn't that long ago it appeared every week a sleaze bucket was outed." exactly lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm" They all do, but this one is particularly putrid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm They all do, but this one is particularly putrid." Indeed. You know when you empty a barrel full of stinking fermenting apples and there is that gunky residue you get when you scrape (the bottom of) the barrel…! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm They all do, but this one is particularly putrid. Indeed. You know when you empty a barrel full of stinking fermenting apples and there is that gunky residue you get when you scrape (the bottom of) the barrel…! " The "one bad apple" thing would work if the entire point of Reform wasn't to demonise foriegners. This bloke fits right into their ethos. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well for better or worse " Definitely worse. " it seems like the EU is taking a long step to the right. Probably best out of it for the Looney left in England." Do you have an example of why it's best to be out, and of who the "loony left" are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well for better or worse it seems like the EU is taking a long step to the right. Probably best out of it for the Looney left in England." If key players (countries) in the EU do ultimately move to the right and more nationalism, then we could see the EU collapse or return to being more of a trading bloc. Mr Putin will be happy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well for better or worse it seems like the EU is taking a long step to the right. Probably best out of it for the Looney left in England. If key players (countries) in the EU do ultimately move to the right and more nationalism, then we could see the EU collapse or return to being more of a trading bloc. Mr Putin will be happy." It started as a trading block and morphed int something far more sinister.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well for better or worse it seems like the EU is taking a long step to the right. Probably best out of it for the Looney left in England. If key players (countries) in the EU do ultimately move to the right and more nationalism, then we could see the EU collapse or return to being more of a trading bloc. Mr Putin will be happy. It started as a trading block and morphed int something far more sinister...." What's that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm They all do, but this one is particularly putrid. Indeed. You know when you empty a barrel full of stinking fermenting apples and there is that gunky residue you get when you scrape (the bottom of) the barrel…! The "one bad apple" thing would work if the entire point of Reform wasn't to demonise foriegners. This bloke fits right into their ethos. " wow the entire point of reform is to demonise foriegners pmsl ypur just getting worse now I thought you hit rock bottom after brexit talk about loonie left rants haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just one rotten apple does not spoil the barrel But if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel to fester it will spoil the rest. You need to remove it. They haven’t! but don’t they all have rotten apples tho or is it only reform hmmmm They all do, but this one is particularly putrid. Indeed. You know when you empty a barrel full of stinking fermenting apples and there is that gunky residue you get when you scrape (the bottom of) the barrel…! The "one bad apple" thing would work if the entire point of Reform wasn't to demonise foriegners. This bloke fits right into their ethos. wow the entire point of reform is to demonise foriegners pmsl ypur just getting worse now I thought you hit rock bottom after brexit talk about loonie left rants haha "
That's right. Anyone who takes a moment to understand the impact of Brexit is a 'loony leftie'.
Good work all round. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't be allowed to stand, simple as that " On what grounds ? Does he have a criminal record or do you just disapprove of his views or comments made in the past | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't be allowed to stand, simple as that On what grounds ? Does he have a criminal record or do you just disapprove of his views or comments made in the past" Incitement to violence in my opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't be allowed to stand, simple as that On what grounds ? Does he have a criminal record or do you just disapprove of his views or comments made in the past" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't be allowed to stand, simple as that On what grounds ? Does he have a criminal record or do you just disapprove of his views or comments made in the past Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit" What IQ do you think people should have to have to stand as an MP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't be allowed to stand, simple as that On what grounds ? Does he have a criminal record or do you just disapprove of his views or comments made in the past Incitement to violence in my opinion " Without charge or conviction? Incitement to violence you say Please explain and give rationale | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't be allowed to stand, simple as that On what grounds ? Does he have a criminal record or do you just disapprove of his views or comments made in the past Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit" So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,?" I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably " And again, who decides, who enforces it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. " I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population)" You are allowing him to stand now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population)" So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit " No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice." Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. " Wow! Just wow! Long slow clap | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. " No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.." Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear." Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear." LOL LOL LOL “academic discussion” seriously you need to do better and be better. Saying: "Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime.”" Was puerile childish nonsense and highly offensive to the millions killed by the Nazis and their descendants. You want a serious adult conversation we can have one but responding to that sort of rubbish isn’t worth anyone’s time or effort. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.." I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage)." Let's not imagine your someone you aren't eh.. Your offensive and puerile comparison above negates that.. Will stay with silly.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage)." A History Professor at Oxford would not say: " Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime." Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. " A bot or a troll might say that.. Plus other silly people not the same.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. A bot or a troll might say that.. Plus other silly people not the same.." Or possibly a Reform supporter? It does seem to attract certain types of people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. " 
Do you stop and think before posting? Try it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear." You're conflating genocide and war and you call that academic discussion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. " This forum gives a chilling insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Even if they can find any more money to do anything they will be too incompetent to do anything with it. Or they won’t be able to because the EU won’t let them. So they’ll just spend their days focusing on really important stuff like telling everyone what they can say or which toilets they can use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. This forum gives a chilling insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Even if they can find any more money to do anything they will be too incompetent to do anything with it. Or they won’t be able to because the EU won’t let them. So they’ll just spend their days focusing on really important stuff like telling everyone what they can say or which toilets they can use." See.. When your not being silly you can present an opinion that others might debate that at least has relevance.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. This forum gives a chilling insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Even if they can find any more money to do anything they will be too incompetent to do anything with it. Or they won’t be able to because the EU won’t let them. So they’ll just spend their days focusing on really important stuff like telling everyone what they can say or which toilets they can use." Nice try but you have swerved away from what you actually said which was to claim life under Labour would be the same as it was for Jews, Gypsies and disabled people under the Nazis. That was a completely ignorant and stupid thing to say. You then try to claim it is “academic discussion” which is objectively is not. Feel free to pull on your big boy pants and admit you made an error of judgement with such a poor taste and stupid childish statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. This forum gives a chilling insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Even if they can find any more money to do anything they will be too incompetent to do anything with it. Or they won’t be able to because the EU won’t let them. So they’ll just spend their days focusing on really important stuff like telling everyone what they can say or which toilets they can use." Definitely a troll. It's actually the Conservatives re toilets. You've been here before, care to share your previous name(s)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. This forum gives a chilling insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Even if they can find any more money to do anything they will be too incompetent to do anything with it. Or they won’t be able to because the EU won’t let them. So they’ll just spend their days focusing on really important stuff like telling everyone what they can say or which toilets they can use. Definitely a troll. It's actually the Conservatives re toilets. You've been here before, care to share your previous name(s)?" Of course! What I can say and think is Labour’s business, why shouldn’t my personal life be? Supervised Relationship Management! Maybe it needs a new quango! Surprisingly I see you are still here! The public sector hard at work! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the big boy pants are staying on the floor then "I think it would be an interesting piece of research to see how many Labour supporters on this forum are recipients of public largesse. 100% would be my estimate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Silliness again.." The "what about Labour" argument is one of my personal favourites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mostly on the grounds of showing himself to be thick as shit So you want an intelligence test before standing ? Who decides the bar and who applies and enforces it,,? I think making pronouncements that 80 years of history has shown to be ignorant at best and grotesque at worst indicates unsuitably And again, who decides, who enforces it. I think in this case the voters of Bexhill (with it's high retirement population) So he can stand and let voters decide. That is democracy...just like Brexit No! I would arrest him, confiscate all his property and sell that at auction to his neighbours, march him to some designated area of town and force him to live with multiple people per room that he does not know while also preventing him from earning a living but force him to work for free in a factory in return for some food and then maybe a few years down the line stick him on a train and take to a hidden camp in the countryside where I’d make him strip off and have a shower with no water and just a room full of gas or perhaps experiment on him by seeing how long he could stay alive in an oven! Then maybe, just maybe, he’d wake up to what a stupid ignorant offensive thing he said! *lack of punctuation is a deliberate creative choice. Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. No, totally silly and fucking offensive to those who died.. Are there any other wars that we are not allowed to engage in academic discussion about? Iraq? Ukraine? The War of the Austrian Succession? I’m guessing Iraq is definitely on the list of topics not to be discussed. Maybe you need to produce a list of what we can discuss and what we can’t discuss just so we are all clear. Wouldn't matter, you would still be making silly comparisons.. I’m simply trying to understand the logic of your position. There doesn’t seem to be one. Let’s say I’m a History Professor at Oxford who specialises in 1930’s Europe. Am I allowed to research and write about the various options available to European countries in that period, and the relative merits of each? Or is my job simply to regurgitate one position as sacrosanct and refuse to acknowledge that different options were possible? I presume that your position is that no discussion is possible. My country right or wrong (when it suits some minor political advantage). A History Professor at Oxford would not say: Sounds like a fair assessment of what life will be like under the forthcoming Labour regime. Because they would know that was absolute rubbish. This forum gives a chilling insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Even if they can find any more money to do anything they will be too incompetent to do anything with it. Or they won’t be able to because the EU won’t let them. So they’ll just spend their days focusing on really important stuff like telling everyone what they can say or which toilets they can use. Definitely a troll. It's actually the Conservatives re toilets. You've been here before, care to share your previous name(s)? Of course! What I can say and think is Labour’s business, why shouldn’t my personal life be? Supervised Relationship Management! Maybe it needs a new quango! Surprisingly I see you are still here! The public sector hard at work!" I cannot work full time due to a brain injury but don't worry I don't get welfare because, even though my brain has a third of the capacity it once had, I'm not disabled enough.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it would be an interesting piece of research to see how many Labour supporters on this forum are recipients of public largesse. 100% would be my estimate." What a ridiculous statement. I'm a Labour Supporter and have never been on Benefits. Or do you mean by "public largesse" free schools and the NHS ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
