Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ComRes phone poll and ComRes and YouGov Euros polls all out

13»

Comments

  • Options
    compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited May 2014

    Yep, he is definitely on the rise!

    We do not have to wait for BPE crossover with UKIP do we? that could take weeks...

    I am coming round to the Bus Pass Elvis party...

    Anyone who stands against Neil Hamilton and Robert Kilroy-Silk is fine by me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Militant_Elvis_Party

    Smarmeron said:

    @compouter2

    Tomorrows polls will probably show the Patriotic Socialist Party cruising to an easy victory.

    Isn't he the chap who beat the Lib Dems into 5th place in a council bye-election in Nottingham?
    It took eighteen months of void predictions before we got the other crossover, weeks will be gone in a flash in comparison.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,756
    Quincel said:

    isam said:

    Quincel said:

    Quincel said:

    corporeal said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr TSE,

    Thank you for your understanding. Nothing wrong with being a fashion icon.

    Going back to the 1950s and 1960s, the mood was completely different. The past really is a foreign country sometimes, so Farage was right to ask that people give the oldies a bit of break.

    As I've said, you're not the first person to think I'm gay.

    I'm quite prepared to admit the hottest people in the universe after my wife is Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston, Karen Gillan, Emma Stone and Christina Hendricks
    All of them are after your wife? Blimey.
    I think all this is achieving is getting PBers to request your wife joins you at the next Dirty Dicks...
    No chance, she often tells me, she's sick to death of that politicalbetting shite.

    The low point came when she found I had taken a day's holiday so I could sleep in the next morning so I could do a PB thread and watch the US Presidential debate, and the fact I was betting on things such as the colour of Mitt Romney's tie.

    I hope you got the tie right and bought her a smart dinner with the winnings!
    Lost the tie but won on the buzzword bingo
    Luis Suarez on sky arts 1
    Ta, but I'm off to bed.
    They showing foreign reruns of 'Fun House'?

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/hilarious-luis-suarez-video-liverpool-3059587
    Cheers.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Oooh that's the morning thread sorted out

    Rafael Behr ‏@rafaelbehr 32s

    Just think how different the White Album would have been if Lennon had sung "I'm so anti-Romanian" instead of "I'm so tired." #Faragesongs

    Or Paul had sung "Blackbird singing I'm so anti-Romanian" instead of "Blackbird singing in the dead of night"
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I think Romanians constitute a nationality not a race, so I don't know how you can be racist against them.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    Tim_B said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    Yeah, maybe.

    But if there any organisation that should not be calling any kettles black it is the Catholic Church.



    JBriskin said:

    Fox - You're not allowed to say that.

    Considering 81% of clerical child abuse victims in the USA were male, perhaps homosexuals should lose some of their self-righteous anger over this subject.
    One of our lunch group is a lifelong and fervent Catholic. Every time I tease him about the Catholic church being the world's largest paedophile organization, he trots out the statistic that child abuse in the Catholic church is the same as in the population at large.

    I don't know the source,and I haven't checked the figures, but it's an interesting if defensive point.
    OK, a few points.

    Catholic Church means clergy, religious and the laity. Everyone who is a Catholic. There is no reason to believe we differ in any way from the general population re:child abuse.

    Catholic clergy are another matter. They probably are the same as most child abuse takes place within the family, and priests/religious aren't supposed to have those. However, this gives a flattering picture because of their presence within institutions. This means one child abuser can abuse an awful lot of children. The same point, incidentally, can be made about homosexuals.

    The real "achievement" in child abuse in recent years is the BBC's. How on Earth do you have a child abuse scandal without having any children's homes, orphanages, schools or hospitals? Congratulations BBC, you certainly win the prize for going the extra mile. And for hypocrisy.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Ninoinoz said:

    Yeah, maybe.

    But if there any organisation that should not be calling any kettles black it is the Catholic Church.



    JBriskin said:

    Fox - You're not allowed to say that.

    Considering 81% of clerical child abuse victims in the USA were male, perhaps homosexuals should lose some of their self-righteous anger over this subject.
    Really???

    You really need the difference between "homosexuality" and "paedophilia" explained?
    Not at all, it's been explained to me many times by gay activists and the BBC.

    A homosexual is not a homosexual when he's caught raping a boy. He then becomes a "paedophile" with no connection with homosexuality, apparently.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    In the Catholoic church it was not just the fact that child abuse happened that caused the scandal, but the way that the Bishops and Arch-Bishops responded to the issue.

    The priests were often simply moved elsewhere, the victims were kept quiet and the abusers allowed to continue un-prosecuted. So colour me a bit sceptical when the same organisation makes homophobic remarks.

    I do not like this secretive, undemocratic multi-national organisation that claims the power to make laws for us to follow. I prefer the EU.

    But goodnight.
    Ninoinoz said:

    Tim_B said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    Yeah, maybe.

    But if there any organisation that should not be calling any kettles black it is the Catholic Church.



    JBriskin said:

    Fox - You're not allowed to say that.

    Considering 81% of clerical child abuse victims in the USA were male, perhaps homosexuals should lose some of their self-righteous anger over this subject.
    One of our lunch group is a lifelong and fervent Catholic. Every time I tease him about the Catholic church being the world's largest paedophile organization, he trots out the statistic that child abuse in the Catholic church is the same as in the population at large.

    I don't know the source,and I haven't checked the figures, but it's an interesting if defensive point.
    OK, a few points.

    Catholic Church means clergy, religious and the laity. Everyone who is a Catholic. There is no reason to believe we differ in any way from the general population re:child abuse.

    Catholic clergy are another matter. They probably are the same as most child abuse takes place within the family, and priests/religious aren't supposed to have those. However, this gives a flattering picture because of their presence within institutions. This means one child abuser can abuse an awful lot of children. The same point, incidentally, can be made about homosexuals.

    The real "achievement" in child abuse in recent years is the BBC's. How on Earth do you have a child abuse scandal without having any children's homes, orphanages, schools or hospitals? Congratulations BBC, you certainly win the prize for going the extra mile. And for hypocrisy.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    edited May 2014

    I have never objected to the proper investigation of the BBC related child abuse cases.

    I am just suspicious of an organisation that is similtaneously homophobic and engaged in covering up child abuse by its own priests.

    And I'm suspicious of an organisation, funded by taxes, promoting a liberal agenda, criticising another organisation for laxity in child protection while systematically ignoring the rape of children by its own employees.

    Incidentally, how's the investigation into child abuse in the NHS going?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,048
    Ninoinoz said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    Yeah, maybe.

    But if there any organisation that should not be calling any kettles black it is the Catholic Church.



    JBriskin said:

    Fox - You're not allowed to say that.

    Considering 81% of clerical child abuse victims in the USA were male, perhaps homosexuals should lose some of their self-righteous anger over this subject.
    Really???

    You really need the difference between "homosexuality" and "paedophilia" explained?
    Not at all, it's been explained to me many times by gay activists and the BBC.

    A homosexual is not a homosexual when he's caught raping a boy. He then becomes a "paedophile" with no connection with homosexuality, apparently.
    Fancy a weekend in Brighton ?

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,304
    Ninoinoz And a heterosexual who rapes a girl I assume? Heterosexual and Homosexual acts are committed with adults, paedophilic acts with children that is the difference
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    In the Catholoic church it was not just the fact that child abuse happened that caused the scandal, but the way that the Bishops and Arch-Bishops responded to the issue.

    The priests were often simply moved elsewhere, the victims were kept quiet and the abusers allowed to continue un-prosecuted. So colour me a bit sceptical when the same organisation makes homophobic remarks.

    I do not like this secretive, undemocratic multi-national organisation that claims the power to make laws for us to follow. I prefer the EU.

    But goodnight.

    In the BBC it was not just the fact that child abuse happened that caused the scandal, but the way that the journalists and managers responded to the issue.

    The employees were often simply left in situ, the victims were kept quiet and the abusers allowed to continue un-prosecuted. So colour me a bit sceptical when the same organisation makes anti-child abuse remarks.

    I do not like this secretive, undemocratic, tax-funded organisation that claims the power to determine the mores for us to follow. I prefer the Catholic Church.

    There, fixed it for you.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    HYUFD said:

    Ninoinoz And a heterosexual who rapes a girl I assume? Heterosexual and Homosexual acts are committed with adults, paedophilic acts with children that is the difference

    Nope. Homosexual means same sex. No age requirement specified.

    I know many people find this politically incovenient, but tough.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,304
    Ninoinoz ie with someone whose sexual organs have actually fully developed
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Martial law imposed in Thailand:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27480845
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Sean_F said:

    corporeal said:

    Ninoinoz said:


    corporeal said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    corporeal said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    CD13 said:

    An interesting point about the over 70s and accurate. They may have old-fashioned attitudes. I'm sure there will be a few around who think that nice Neil and Mr TSE just need to meet the right girl.

    Heh, I'm married, to a woman.

    You're not the first person to think I'm gay.
    Oscar Wilde was married.
    Yehbut Oscar Wilde isn't as witty as me.

    Plus, I'm more into Olivia Wilde than Oscar Wilde.
    Oscar Wilde was also a child abuser.
    Source?
    Take a look at those witnesses at his trials.

    And those were only the ones old enough to testify.
    Charles Parker 19, Alphonso Conway, 18, Lord Alfred Douglas 21. Edward Shelley 18,

    Can you give a me a hint here because I'm not coming up with anything relevant?
    All those partners would have been illegal up to the 1980's.
    Yes, hence the trial etc.

    What you said was child abuser...
    Margaret Cotta, a chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel, gave evidence that she found a 14 year old boy in Wilde's bed, at his trial.

    I think that "child abuser" is a term that should be reserved for those who have sex with pre-pubescent children. But, in our time, Wilde would have received a similar sentence to Jonatan King.

    Fwiw, from the good people at university of missouri kansas city.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/Crimcotter.html

    Cotter: I am employed as a chambermaid in the Savoy Hotel. I remember Mr. Wilde staying at the hotel in March, 1893. At first he occupied No. 361 and Lord Douglas the room adjoining, No. 362. I found it necessary to call the attention of the housekeeper to the condition of Mr. Wilde's bed. The sheets were stained in a peculiar way. On the third morning of his stay, about eleven o'clock, Mr. Wilde rang the bell for the housemaid. On answering the bell I met Mr. Wilde in the doorway of No. 361, and he told me he wanted a fire in his own room, No. 362. There I saw a boy of eighteen or nineteen years of age with dark close-cropped hair and a sallow complexion. Some days later Lord Alfred Douglas left the hotel, and Mr. Wilde then removed into rooms in the front of the hotel.

    But Mr Nino appears to have produced a better source.
This discussion has been closed.