politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the LDs experience is anything to go by then major party
Comments
-
I think your post throughout this week have been outstanding, it was ashame we didn't get a chance to chat at the pb meet.Cyclefree said:
Gratuitous offense lobbied in the direction of those who want control what we think and say is exactly what is needed now and will keep on being needed until those who try and control what we may think and say slink away, never to return.Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Or - as the Duke of Wellington put it - "Publish and be damned!"
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.0 -
Goals do not lead anywhere. Alleys do not champion things. Stop frothing and attend to your metaphors.audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
0 -
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
0 -
Seems we need another 216 virgins.. asap...tough call..0
-
Next time, eh?Pulpstar said:
I think your post throughout this week have been outstanding, it was ashame we didn't get a chance to chat at the pb meet.Cyclefree said:
Gratuitous offense lobbied in the direction of those who want control what we think and say is exactly what is needed now and will keep on being needed until those who try and control what we may think and say slink away, never to return.Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Or - as the Duke of Wellington put it - "Publish and be damned!"
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
And thank you.
0 -
Cameron confirms his spinelessness in a snub to young voters.He is denying the public necessary scrutiny by his cowardice.
http://bitetheballot.co.uk/wewantmore/0 -
LOLCasino_Royale said:
"How do you know Vicky?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, please ensure The Official State Sanctioning Epistle Requirements Service approves your letter prior to sending it.
> Friend
> Family
> I've worked with Vicky
> I've done business with her
> She tried to muzzle my freedom of expression"0 -
0
-
Of all the posters on pb.com, I think audreyanne is one of the worst. "Her" posts are incoherent, poorly argued, lack wit, insight, betting tips, analysis or - indeed - any contribution of value whatsoever to our discussions.Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Many of her posts are just downright rude and insulting. The tragedy is that "she" seems to think she's a wag and that her insights possess real intellectual rigour. I skip over almost everything she writes.
Worst poster of the year award.0 -
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on sideCyclefree said:
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.0 -
That "upset" translates into sentences of 1000 lashes for "insulting Islam": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
That's not a "tiny minority" of terrorist's, but a mainstream Islamic state. Where you see "good guys" with hurt feelings I see self-important little shits to whom I have no desire to pander.
0 -
Ye but every word she writes out I read back in Mrs Doubtfire's voice. It is comedy gold.Casino_Royale said:
Of all the posters on pb.com, I think audreyanne is one of the worst. "Her" posts are incoherent, poorly argued, lack wit, insight, betting tips, analysis or - indeed - any contribution of value whatsoever to our discussions.Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Many of her posts are just downright rude and insulting. The tragedy is that "she" seems to think she's a wag and that her insights possess real intellectual rigour. I skip over almost everything she writes.
Worst poster of the year award.
Mind you, I do that with all the posters here, except the animal ones - I don't imagine cyclefree's posts being barked out... ;p
0 -
Lol.Casino_Royale said:Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Worst poster of the year award.
Like the proverbial rogue poll = the poster with whom you least agree award.-1 -
Mr. Isam, self-censorship was precisely what the terrorists wanted.
I could otherwise see your argument as valid, but if the cartoons are unpublished now then we're effectively handing over to Al-Qaeda the decision of just where we should set our boundaries for freedom of speech, and of the press.0 -
Apparently a French news station conducted live phone interviews with a gunman from each of the two sites this afternoon.0
-
On the cartoons I think the newspapers should only have published them if they genuinely believed them to be amusing. I don't think it would be helpful to publish something that clearly would offend someone (and I think people are allowed to be offended just as much as other people have the right to offend), just for the sake of proving a point.
I love Monty Python's The Life of Brian, but I love it because it makes me smile. Yes I think it's amusing that some in the Church got quite upset about it - particularly as I suspect most their flock couldn't care less or actually found it amusing themselves. But I'd like to think that Python set out to make something that was funny, and that it just happened to be set in a historical/religious context that most of us are familiar with.
My French is not good and I'm not sure if the translations do the cartoons justice but I'm not sure if they are actually that funny. I have a feeling that if these cartoons had been produced by somebody else (NF/Ukip etc), then the reaction wouldn't have been quite so warm.
What happened to Charlie Hebdo was appalling. But I don't think it achieves a great deal to publish something for the sake of publishing it.0 -
Wrong.audreyanne said:
Lol.Casino_Royale said:Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Worst poster of the year award.
Like the proverbial rogue poll = the poster with whom you least agree award.
0 -
The House of Saud are Backward ass wahabi leadersIshmael_X said:
That "upset" translates into sentences of 1000 lashes for "insulting Islam": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
That's not a "tiny minority" of terrorist's, but a mainstream Islamic state. Where you see "good guys" with hurt feelings I see self-important little shits to whom I have no desire to pander.
Mark Steel notes it here:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/mark-steel/charlie-hebdo-norways-christians-didnt-have-to-apologise-for-anders-breivik-and-its-the-same-for-muslims-now-30893847.html
"And the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who recently got through 19 executions in one month, are sold billions of pounds worth of weapons. So maybe the gunmen’s strategy was to prove how mental they were, thinking they’d then be invited for biscuits with The Queen, and then be asked to do a deal for a tank."
No, I don't think muslims have anything to apologise for either btw.0 -
No. There are posters I disagree with more (EiT, Nick Palmer, BJO, and Roger, to name a few) and I'm on your side of the political spectrum.audreyanne said:
Lol.Casino_Royale said:Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Worst poster of the year award.
Like the proverbial rogue poll = the poster with whom you least agree award.
I just think your posts on here are absolutely dreadful, as is the manner in which you engage with others.
Now, I have other things to do this weekend. Good evening.0 -
+1 - I assume it's a troll account of the yellow box poster.Casino_Royale said:
Of all the posters on pb.com, I think audreyanne is one of the worst. "Her" posts are incoherent, poorly argued, lack wit, insight, betting tips, analysis or - indeed - any contribution of value whatsoever to our discussions.Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Many of her posts are just downright rude and insulting. The tragedy is that "she" seems to think she's a wag and that her insights possess real intellectual rigour. I skip over almost everything she writes.
Worst poster of the year award.0 -
0
The above may or may not be my representation of a god.
The Buddhists would perhaps applaud if I say it's Buddha.
The Christians would try to re-interpret it as a cross stretched to infinity if I say it's Christ.
The Moslems would be out for my blood if I said it was Mohammed.
They're all daft responses, but some are much more daft than others.
0 -
And I tend to agree with you. Strange world.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
On the subject of murder I think everyone can agree its wrong no matter what the excuse - and in this case the cartoons were the excuse. If it were not cartoons it would be something else. If everyone had published cartoons it would have been someone else.
In terms of the subject it seems pretty poor satire to attack someone who has been dead for hundreds of years. If you want to satirise the misrepresentation of Islam then surely you should satirise the terrorists themselves not their supposed prophet.
All the howling 'print the cartoon' 'we don't want to' arguments are just what terrorists want. And of course from amongst all the millions of European Muslims I am struggling to find any non terrorist incitements to murder over this.
BTW - having been left with the mess of multiculturalism we do indeed need to sort it out. And hysteria is definitely not the way to do it.
0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9EHtQMMc4Flightpath said:
In terms of the subject it seems pretty poor satire to attack someone who has been dead for hundreds of years.0 -
Casino
"Many of her posts are just downright rude and insulting. The tragedy is that "she" seems to think she's a wag and that her insights possess real intellectual rigour. I skip over almost everything she writes."
Just because it's now de rigueur to be offensive doesn't mean it's obligatory0 -
Nicolas Sarkozy:
"War has been declared on France, on her institutions, on the Republic, by savages who negate the very existence of civilization and the universal values of humanism."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates0 -
Surely UKIPs poorer rating is due to the endless scandals. They seem to have had plenty of media attention - just not the sort they want..0
-
Will Self speaking unbelievable crap on Channel 4.0
-
Nothing new.Socrates said:Will Self speaking unbelievable crap on Channel 4.
Part of the Tony Barber school.
0 -
With freedoms comes responsibilities. I do not see how you can avoid that. Freedom of speech is just one side of the coin. Leaving aside the responsibility not to cause spurious offence, you should also think that one of those responsibilities is to those whose duty it is to defend us. In this case 3 or 4 French police are dead at the moment.Pulpstar said:
Big events Rog, the PC cobwebs have been blown away - everyone's changed their views to be in favour of free speech now.Roger said:audreyanne
....
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Just because someone produces a vulgar cartoon... quite possibly bad satire aimed at the wrong target... am I supposed to even understand it, never mind like it, or be dragooned into publishing it in sympathy?0 -
"In terms of the subject it seems pretty poor satire to attack someone who has been dead for hundreds of years."
So no satire involving Jesus? You'd better inform the average British comedian of that.0 -
Will Self did say "With freedom comes responsibility."
0 -
That is more extreme rhetoric than the one even Le Pen used.AndyJS said:Nicolas Sarkozy:
"War has been declared on France, on her institutions, on the Republic, by savages who negate the very existence of civilization and the universal values of humanism."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates0 -
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.isam said:
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on sideCyclefree said:
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.0 -
Care and Quality Commission report on Hinchinbrooke is published
Not very good no wonder they have cut and run
http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/RQQ31/inspection-summary#overall0 -
Chap I can barely stomach, Martin Rowson, also on C4 News. Apparantly he wanted to do a cartoon of Muhammad stroking a cat with a t shirt saying "not in my name". But no newspaper would publish it.
Shame on the newspapers. It would for once have been a cartoon from Rowson that I would have welcomed.0 -
Will Self described the terrorist brothers as "also being murdered". Murder is unlawful killing, you imbecile.0
-
Works for me.Pulpstar said:
Ye but every word she writes out I read back in Mrs Doubtfire's voice. It is comedy gold.Casino_Royale said:
Of all the posters on pb.com, I think audreyanne is one of the worst. "Her" posts are incoherent, poorly argued, lack wit, insight, betting tips, analysis or - indeed - any contribution of value whatsoever to our discussions.Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Many of her posts are just downright rude and insulting. The tragedy is that "she" seems to think she's a wag and that her insights possess real intellectual rigour. I skip over almost everything she writes.
Worst poster of the year award.
Mind you, I do that with all the posters here0 -
"With freedom comes responsibility." ...not to offend the down trodden non-european religons or poke fun at their beliefs........dr_spyn said:Will Self did say "With freedom comes responsibility."
0 -
Has he just woken up?Cyclefree said:Canadian PM Stephen Harper:
“The international jihadist movement has declared war. They have declared war on anybody who does not think and act exactly as they wish they’d think and act. We may not like this and wish it would go away, but it’s not going to go away, and the reality is we are going to have to confront it."
There was me thinking an International Jihadist Movement was all about swapping stamps - and blow me it turns out to be about making war.
''Jihad'' definition 'a war or struggle against unbelievers.'
Why is it that I think I'm surrounded by Jack D Rippers at the moment. Paranoia rules, maybe its all down to fluoridation.
0 -
I just caught that on Ch4 news - Will Self really is a cliched dick of the first order.Socrates said:Will Self described the terrorist brothers as "also being murdered". Murder is unlawful killing, you imbecile.
0 -
To put Hinchinbrooke into perspective
All CQC ratings
4 Outstanding
249 Good
86 Requires improvement
21 Inadequate
Hinchinbrooke in worst 21 of 3600 -
I agree that no one should consider the terrorists to be justified in their actions, but nor do I think we should start publishing cartoons for the sake of free speech.Socrates said:
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.isam said:
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on sideCyclefree said:
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.
Just because we think it's appalling that people have been murdered because someone didn't like some cartoons, doesn't mean we should publish those cartoons as a way of sticking two fingers up at the terrorists.
We need to think for ourselves, and ask the question, do we think the cartoons are funny or make a valid point? If the answer is no, then we should not publish them.0 -
Indeed. Although I find Guido does dip into some really lazy attacks sometime with absolutely no self awareness of that fact, on many occasions they can call something just right and be relied on to not mince their words about it.Richard_Tyndall said:
Good for him and hopefully Labourlist and Conhome will follow suit. Bloody outrageous.dr_spyn said:This might amuse.
http://order-order.com/2015/01/09/electoral-commission-trying-to-regulate-blogsnotifies-guido-conservativehome-labourlist-libdemvoice/
Guido says get lost.0 -
All 21 inadequate rated organisations are private sector.
20 nursing and care homes
1 hospital (Hinchinbrooke)0 -
Lets hope no one with a sarcasm bypass reads Mr Bonds comment and sets off after him. You of course are now duty bound to defend him to the hilt despite his use of the lowest form of wit.SimonStClare said:
Harsh Mr Bond, very harsh. - lets hope after all this horror, France can get back to normality.Bond_James_Bond said:
Well, they were French police.SimonStClare said:Evening all.
Sky - Four hostages and a gunman are killed in the supermarket siege as French media say a second suspect is believed to have escaped."
Dreadful news regarding the innocent victims - how on earth could one of the terrorists escape with so many police covering the scene?0 -
You could say the same about the Tories and UKIP.HYUFD said:Carnyx The Scottish Greens basically grew out of the English and Welsh Greens, it was not founded as a separate party, but basically became the rUK Greens' sister party
Slight update, you need to revise your Scottish politics there.HYUFD said:tlg86 If you have 1 minor party, you have to have all main minor parties, especially as the Greens beat the LDs in the euros and in several polls and by-elections. The Greens, or their sister party, stand in Scotland as do UKIP. The best solution would be Miliband v Cameron as debate 1, then Miliband v Cameron v Clegg as debate 2, then Miliband v Cameron v Clegg v Farage v Bennett and maybe George Galloway as debate 3. Scotland would have separate debates too between Salmond, Murphy, Davidson and Rennie; Wales between Carwyn Jones, Andrew RT Davies, Leanne Wood and Kirsty Williams; Northern Ireland between Peter Robinson, Gerry Adams, Margaret Ritchie and David Ford. That way there can be no complaints and all parties represented in the Commons would be in the debates
0 -
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the appalling patriarchalism of Islam is underpinned by Big Bad Nobodaddy who Must Not Be Insulted in the background. It is doing a favour to the victims of that patriarchalism (the women going about dressed in bin liners, and getting raped and killed for having boyfriends) to demonstrate that it is actually possible to state loudly and clearly the alternative view that Big Bad Nobodaddy is a risible arsehat, without the sky falling in.0
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693
Saudi blogger Badawi 'flogged for Islam insult'
Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail, was flogged 50 times. The flogging will be carried out weekly, campaigners say.
For those that want to live under Sharia Law, this is how it is: Islam as practiced by extremists, who are at the same time one of the West so called allies.0 -
Yes, I can see your point re the English debates, but what worries me about that is that falls into the trap of equating England with the UK. I know it's a chronic fault of the BBC, for one, but people should know better ... it';s not even as if anyone is making any serious attempt to discuss the UK as the UK, for no party is truly UK-wide, and it's utterly parochial to try and claim supremacy on some narrower distinction. Unionists are supposed to be Unionists after all, and not, say, Little Englanders.tlg86 said:
I was thinking about this today and came to the conclusion that the debates are really English debates so the fact that the Greens are the English (and possibly Welsh?!) Greens doesn't really come into it.Carnyx said:The [English] Greens are also a regional party. But so are the Tories, Labour and the LDs as they don't operate in NI.
That said I don't think that Greens should be there. Personally I think it should be only those who can be PM (if we must have the debates at all), but I think there are reasons for including the Lib Dems and Ukip and not the Greens.
0 -
What policies?Omnium said:UKIP aren't going to push hard for Tory votes - it'll be Labour votes that they can cultivate in large numbers. Farage is more working-class than Ed and they'll play on that. Ed has after all never had a proper job. Not even a paper-round.
Or would that be beyond satire?
It is of course easy as the LDs have shown to be a party of dichotomies as long as you do not have ambitions for govt. Is UKIP left wing or shall we just regard them as crude nationalists now?
0 -
Douglas Murray @DouglasKMurray 5m5 minutes ago
The journalists of Charlie Hebdo died for free speech. Their President, by contrast, won't even identify why they were killed.0 -
It could be argued that because someone, many people in fact, are willing to commit violence or defend such behaviour if and when such things are published, means the publishing of them, irrespective of their artistic or satirical merit otherwise, makes a valid point. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to publish them in order to make that point if they don't want to, but that people respond so viscerally and indisputably wrongly and idiotically to their mere existence and dissemination goes a long way to making even an unfunny doodling expressing similar sentiment potentially a valid point.tlg86 said:
I agree that no one should consider the terrorists to be justified in their actions, but nor do I think we should start publishing cartoons for the sake of free speech.Socrates said:
If tsult.isam said:
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on sideCyclefree said:
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.isam said:
I agree with you!audreyanne said:Interesting: I'm not alone!
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
@richardhoskins
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Moderae a bit of common sense.
Just because we think it's appalling that people have been murdered because someone didn't like some cartoons, doesn't mean we should publish those cartoons as a way of sticking two fingers up at the terrorists.
We need to think for ourselves, and ask the question, do we think the cartoons are funny or make a valid point? If the answer is no, then we should not publish them.0 -
Indy has 'The Truth about the Sex Scandal that brought down Roger Bird' on its front page.0
-
Digital debates offered by Telegraph,Grauniad and YouTube.Cameron can't really refuse-can he?-but it looks like he would play this as a substitute for the TV debates which he will still avoid like the Black Death.Cameron must not be allowed to use this to squirm out of the main TV debates,sliding into the undergrowth like the spineless reptile he is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11335945/David-Cameron-challenged-to-five-way-digital-leaders-debate.html0 -
Daily Mail Online @MailOnline 44m44 minutes ago
30 Jewish shoppers survived Paris supermarket siege by hiding in the freezer http://dailym.ai/1y04EyF0 -
Wot! Debates where Farage showed he was a bigger smartarse than Clegg in the beauty parade stakes? That was of course a triumph.Richard_Tyndall said:
You mean the debates where, by common agreement, Farage wiped the floor with Clegg? I think he could live with that.volcanopete said:The question of extra media attention for Ukip may well work against it than for it if past performance is anything to go.The fact that at the moment Ukip's support comes from the elderly but the party has no pensions policy is a case in point.
Farage could,however, score points off Cameron in the TV debates which is one reason Cameron is trying to avoid the debates completely.It could be more to do with the fact that when he loses it and becomes Flashman,the red and purple faced Bullingdon bully boy,it is very unpleasant for voters to watch.Farage,too,must be careful as he looked well out of shape in the 1st debate with Clegg-a heavily sweating Farage won't attract either.0 -
Fox News has overdone it as usual, watch the video:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-guest-blames-paris-attack-on-pol-correctness-warns-communist-de-blasio-will-bring-it-here/
“Until we hold the Arab world and the Muslim world accountable for letting this radical Islamic ideology — which as I have said before is as evil as Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, it is not a religion — until we hold these people accountable and in their own environment as general al-Sisi of Egypt said a few days ago when he chastised the imams for preaching this kind of radical ideology,” he continued. “So the west, the entire world, must hold Islam and the Muslims accountable.”
“But with the current leadership in New York, and I’m referring to the COMMUNIST mayor you have up there, that may change,” McInerney replied. “So I think that the world better wake up.”0 -
Pete Durnell UKIP @PeteDurnell 44m44 minutes ago
French MP gives almost word for word same speech on terrorism (as Farage's) on Sky News, not accused of racism or 'making political capital'0 -
UKIP do appear to be, if we view it charitably, still in the process of formulating a solid identity. But why should they not pick and mix policies from all across the left-right spectrum. The spectrum is tribal nonsense often with the barest of ideological underpinnings. Choose what works regardless of where things fall, why not? UKIP doesn't have to pick left or right, or they can pick mostly one except in other areas. It's not like the action is unprecedented among political parties.Flightpath said:
Is UKIP left wing or shall we just regard them as crude nationalists now?Omnium said:UKIP aren't going to push hard for Tory votes - it'll be Labour votes that they can cultivate in large numbers. Farage is more working-class than Ed and they'll play on that. Ed has after all never had a proper job. Not even a paper-round.
0 -
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5517/instant_view_media_plays_down_paris_kosher_pogrom
INSTANT VIEW: Media plays down Paris Kosher pogrom
The vile anti-Semitic pogrom at a Paris Kosher supermarket on Friday is being dramatically downplayed by a politically correct mainstream media that cannot handle the reality of widespread Jew-hatred among Islamists0 -
It also says 'Norwegian Christians did not have to apologise for Brevic...'dr_spyn said:Indy has 'The Truth about the Sex Scandal that brought down Roger Bird' on its front page.
0 -
Indeed and no one with any sense thinks in terms of left and right anymore anyway.kle4 said:
UKIP do appear to be, if we view it charitably, still in the process of formulating a solid identity. But why should they not pick and mix policies from all across the left-right spectrum. The spectrum is tribal nonsense often with the barest of ideological underpinnings. Choose what works regardless of where things fall, why not? UKIP doesn't have to pick left or right, or they can pick mostly one except in other areas. It's not like the action is unprecedented among political parties.Flightpath said:
Is UKIP left wing or shall we just regard them as crude nationalists now?Omnium said:UKIP aren't going to push hard for Tory votes - it'll be Labour votes that they can cultivate in large numbers. Farage is more working-class than Ed and they'll play on that. Ed has after all never had a proper job. Not even a paper-round.
0 -
Reptiles are not spineless. Try gastropod?volcanopete said:Digital debates offered by Telegraph,Grauniad and YouTube.Cameron can't really refuse-can he?-but it looks like he would play this as a substitute for the TV debates which he will still avoid like the Black Death.Cameron must not be allowed to use this to squirm out of the main TV debates,sliding into the undergrowth like the spineless reptile he is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11335945/David-Cameron-challenged-to-five-way-digital-leaders-debate.html
Cameron has a country to run, he can't pop along to every sixth form debating society in the country.
0 -
Did Roger Bird, or the bird he tried to roger sell the story to the paper?Flightpath said:
It also says 'Norwegian Christians did not have to apologise for Brevic...'dr_spyn said:Indy has 'The Truth about the Sex Scandal that brought down Roger Bird' on its front page.
0 -
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 37s37 seconds ago
Le Pen asked Hollande to suspend Schengen agreement and strip terrorists of citizenship http://rt.com/news/221167-le-pen-france-attacks/ …0 -
You mean this?dr_spyn said:Indy has 'The Truth about the Sex Scandal that brought down Roger Bird' on its front page.
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/roger-bird-ukip-power-struggle-not-a-sex-scandal-cost-exgeneral-secretary-his-job-9969180.html
Essentially a struggle between 2 party wings using shady HRx Consultancy Services as a weapon.0 -
Flightpath everyone knows that as far as politics is concerned you couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it so do stop making yourself look a bigger fool than you already are.Flightpath said:
Wot! Debates where Farage showed he was a bigger smartarse than Clegg in the beauty parade stakes? That was of course a triumph.Richard_Tyndall said:
You mean the debates where, by common agreement, Farage wiped the floor with Clegg? I think he could live with that.volcanopete said:The question of extra media attention for Ukip may well work against it than for it if past performance is anything to go.The fact that at the moment Ukip's support comes from the elderly but the party has no pensions policy is a case in point.
Farage could,however, score points off Cameron in the TV debates which is one reason Cameron is trying to avoid the debates completely.It could be more to do with the fact that when he loses it and becomes Flashman,the red and purple faced Bullingdon bully boy,it is very unpleasant for voters to watch.Farage,too,must be careful as he looked well out of shape in the 1st debate with Clegg-a heavily sweating Farage won't attract either.0 -
Commodities trading is a "working class" activity?Omnium said:UKIP aren't going to push hard for Tory votes - it'll be Labour votes that they can cultivate in large numbers. Farage is more working-class than Ed and they'll play on that. Ed has after all never had a proper job. Not even a paper-round.
0 -
Anyone else having trouble with le mode mgz com when they try to access PB?0
-
Do you remember Death of a Princess?MikeK said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693
Saudi blogger Badawi 'flogged for Islam insult'
Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail, was flogged 50 times. The flogging will be carried out weekly, campaigners say.
For those that want to live under Sharia Law, this is how it is: Islam as practiced by extremists, who are at the same time one of the West so called allies.0 -
LOL even most sensible Tories think his excuses are laughable.Ishmael_X said:
Reptiles are not spineless. Try gastropod?volcanopete said:Digital debates offered by Telegraph,Grauniad and YouTube.Cameron can't really refuse-can he?-but it looks like he would play this as a substitute for the TV debates which he will still avoid like the Black Death.Cameron must not be allowed to use this to squirm out of the main TV debates,sliding into the undergrowth like the spineless reptile he is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11335945/David-Cameron-challenged-to-five-way-digital-leaders-debate.html
Cameron has a country to run, he can't pop along to every sixth form debating society in the country.0 -
It is on Eastenders. They all seem barrow boys of one kind or another. So maybe UKIP are onto somethingperdix said:
Commodities trading is a "working class" activity?Omnium said:UKIP aren't going to push hard for Tory votes - it'll be Labour votes that they can cultivate in large numbers. Farage is more working-class than Ed and they'll play on that. Ed has after all never had a proper job. Not even a paper-round.
0 -
Well Who'd have thunk it?
Labour voters in England asking 'what is in this for us?', says Miliband aide
John Denham, the former Communities Secretary, calls for party to produce 'English Manifesto' and warns Jim Murphy's 1,000 nurses announcement irked southern voters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11335740/Labour-voters-in-England-asking-what-is-in-this-for-us-says-Miliband-aide.html
0 -
Speedy said:
You mean this?dr_spyn said:Indy has 'The Truth about the Sex Scandal that brought down Roger Bird' on its front page.
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/roger-bird-ukip-power-struggle-not-a-sex-scandal-cost-exgeneral-secretary-his-job-9969180.html
Essentially a struggle between 2 party wings using shady HRx Consultancy Services as a weapon.
Essentially a struggle between 2 party wings using shady HRx Consultancy Services as a weapon.
Just as a warning: Blaney is very litigious. Be careful.0 -
"Those who committed these acts, these fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim faith."
Said Cnut, as the waters of World War 3 lapped around his dick.0 -
These fanatics are patsies, prepared in advance to carry the can.
http://tapnewswire.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-patsies-in-grave-danger/0 -
Oh dear whose upset? The fact that Farage out gurned Clegg is a real shockerRichard_Tyndall said:
Flightpath everyone knows that as far as politics is concerned you couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it so do stop making yourself look a bigger fool than you already are.Flightpath said:
Wot! Debates where Farage showed he was a bigger smartarse than Clegg in the beauty parade stakes? That was of course a triumph.Richard_Tyndall said:
You mean the debates where, by common agreement, Farage wiped the floor with Clegg? I think he could live with that.volcanopete said:The question of extra media attention for Ukip may well work against it than for it if past performance is anything to go.The fact that at the moment Ukip's support comes from the elderly but the party has no pensions policy is a case in point.
Farage could,however, score points off Cameron in the TV debates which is one reason Cameron is trying to avoid the debates completely.It could be more to do with the fact that when he loses it and becomes Flashman,the red and purple faced Bullingdon bully boy,it is very unpleasant for voters to watch.Farage,too,must be careful as he looked well out of shape in the 1st debate with Clegg-a heavily sweating Farage won't attract either.
0 -
No, look again at the debates vp wants him to participate in.bigjohnowls said:
LOL even most sensible Tories think his excuses are laughable.Ishmael_X said:
Reptiles are not spineless. Try gastropod?volcanopete said:Digital debates offered by Telegraph,Grauniad and YouTube.Cameron can't really refuse-can he?-but it looks like he would play this as a substitute for the TV debates which he will still avoid like the Black Death.Cameron must not be allowed to use this to squirm out of the main TV debates,sliding into the undergrowth like the spineless reptile he is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11335945/David-Cameron-challenged-to-five-way-digital-leaders-debate.html
Cameron has a country to run, he can't pop along to every sixth form debating society in the country.
0 -
Terrible wind tonight
Must be the Curry!!0 -
@tlg86
'We need to think for ourselves, and ask the question, do we think the cartoons are funny or make a valid point? If the answer is no, then we should not publish them'
Exactly,'we' can make our own minds up when they are published,and if 'we' don't like them 'we' may not want to buy the newspapers,magazines they are published in in future.
'We' used to enjoy freedom of speech.0 -
Interview with gunman Cherif Kouachi shortly before he was killed:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u0-X6SqJyw0 -
The only thing I am upset about today is your inexcusable comments about the murdered journalists. I always knew you were a nasty piece of work but hadn't realised just how much of an authoritarian sociopath you really were.Flightpath said:
Oh dear whose upset? The fact that Farage out gurned Clegg is a real shockerRichard_Tyndall said:
Flightpath everyone knows that as far as politics is concerned you couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it so do stop making yourself look a bigger fool than you already are.Flightpath said:
Wot! Debates where Farage showed he was a bigger smartarse than Clegg in the beauty parade stakes? That was of course a triumph.Richard_Tyndall said:
You mean the debates where, by common agreement, Farage wiped the floor with Clegg? I think he could live with that.volcanopete said:The question of extra media attention for Ukip may well work against it than for it if past performance is anything to go.The fact that at the moment Ukip's support comes from the elderly but the party has no pensions policy is a case in point.
Farage could,however, score points off Cameron in the TV debates which is one reason Cameron is trying to avoid the debates completely.It could be more to do with the fact that when he loses it and becomes Flashman,the red and purple faced Bullingdon bully boy,it is very unpleasant for voters to watch.Farage,too,must be careful as he looked well out of shape in the 1st debate with Clegg-a heavily sweating Farage won't attract either.
As is common knowledge here I couldn't care less about Farage generally. But pointing out your epsilon semi-moron tendencies is something that I consider to be a public duty these days.0 -
The report is quite interesting.dr_spyn said:
Did Roger Bird, or the bird he tried to roger sell the story to the paper?Flightpath said:
It also says 'Norwegian Christians did not have to apologise for Brevic...'dr_spyn said:Indy has 'The Truth about the Sex Scandal that brought down Roger Bird' on its front page.
''Ukip officials also failed to tell Mr Bird the company that carried out the investigation into the sexual harassment claims, HRx Consultancy Services, is closely connected to a leading Tory activist.''
'' “It was Roger who failed her for the third stage and recommended getting her back in that day for reassessment.” ''
And having reassessed he took her to bed.
Boringly it seems to have been a UKIP power struggle. Despite him being assessed innocent they used it as an excuse to sack him.
0 -
@bigjohnowls
'LOL even most sensible Tories think his excuses are laughable.'
And sensible lefties are relieved they won't have Ed on TV costing them thousands of votes.0 -
Dulwich College vs Dagenham Secondary?perdix said:
Commodities trading is a "working class" activity?Omnium said:UKIP aren't going to push hard for Tory votes - it'll be Labour votes that they can cultivate in large numbers. Farage is more working-class than Ed and they'll play on that. Ed has after all never had a proper job. Not even a paper-round.
0 -
I'm curious: what does a little statue of a cherub sound like?Pulpstar said:
Ye but every word she writes out I read back in Mrs Doubtfire's voice. It is comedy gold.Casino_Royale said:
Of all the posters on pb.com, I think audreyanne is one of the worst. "Her" posts are incoherent, poorly argued, lack wit, insight, betting tips, analysis or - indeed - any contribution of value whatsoever to our discussions.Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Many of her posts are just downright rude and insulting. The tragedy is that "she" seems to think she's a wag and that her insights possess real intellectual rigour. I skip over almost everything she writes.
Worst poster of the year award.
Mind you, I do that with all the posters here, except the animal ones - I don't imagine cyclefree's posts being barked out... ;p0 -
If that were likely dont you think Dave would be keener?john_zims said:@bigjohnowls
'LOL even most sensible Tories think his excuses are laughable.'
And sensible lefties are relieved they won't have Ed on TV costing them thousands of votes.0 -
You are incapable of English comprehension if you draw that conclusion. Either that or you you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. As such its you who are the moron. Maybe a moron who does not even understand free speech since to you all of a sudden are deeming comments 'inexcusable' if they do not suit you.Richard_Tyndall said:
The only thing I am upset about today is your inexcusable comments about the murdered journalists. I always knew you were a nasty piece of work but hadn't realised just how much of an authoritarian sociopath you really were.Flightpath said:
Oh dear whose upset? The fact that Farage out gurned Clegg is a real shockerRichard_Tyndall said:
Flightpath everyone knows that as far as politics is concerned you couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it so do stop making yourself look a bigger fool than you already are.Flightpath said:
Wot! Debates where Farage showed he was a bigger smartarse than Clegg in the beauty parade stakes? That was of course a triumph.Richard_Tyndall said:
You mean the debates where, by common agreement, Farage wiped the floor with Clegg? I think he could live with that.volcanopete said:The question of extra media attention for Ukip may well work against it than for it if past performance is anything to go.The fact that at the moment Ukip's support comes from the elderly but the party has no pensions policy is a case in point.
Farage could,however, score points off Cameron in the TV debates which is one reason Cameron is trying to avoid the debates completely.It could be more to do with the fact that when he loses it and becomes Flashman,the red and purple faced Bullingdon bully boy,it is very unpleasant for voters to watch.Farage,too,must be careful as he looked well out of shape in the 1st debate with Clegg-a heavily sweating Farage won't attract either.
As is common knowledge here I couldn't care less about Farage generally. But pointing out your epsilon semi-moron tendencies is something that I consider to be a public duty these days.
We have already had another commentator on here delivering a dose of sarcasm against dead French police. But you seem to object to little ol' me saying that it was wrong to murder a satirist irrespective of if the satire was good or bad or justified or not.
Or do you object to me reminding everyone that official muslim spokesmen also called the murders totally unjustified. Perhaps you object to me regularly pointing out that Islam is a medieval religion that needs to grow up.
But as a well known hysteric I guess you just object to everything.0 -
-
It looks like the police had no option but to raid the supermarket after the police killed the original terrorists as they tried to escape. The supermarket gunman was demanding their escape. (The Times)AndyJS said:Interview with gunman Cherif Kouachi shortly before he was killed:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u0-X6SqJyw0 -
0
-
From Popbitch this week.
This should appeal to TSE.
http://popbitch.com/home/2014/12/19/carol-service/0 -
Christ on a bike.bigjohnowls said:
If that were likely dont you think Dave would be keener?john_zims said:@bigjohnowls
'LOL even most sensible Tories think his excuses are laughable.'
And sensible lefties are relieved they won't have Ed on TV costing them thousands of votes.
As everyone has now despaired of making you understand, it's not just a 2 way ed vs dave fight.
0 -
The hostage the terrorists didn't know they had: Print worker hid in cardboard box for eight hours and texted police while Charlie Hebdo gunmen held his boss captive in final showdown
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903870/The-hostage-terrorists-didn-t-know-Print-worker-hid-box-texted-police-Charlie-Hebdo-gunmen-held-boss-captive-final-showdown.html0 -
Let's calm it down eh?Flightpath said:
You are incapable of English comprehension if you draw that conclusion. Either that or you you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. As such its you who are the moron. Maybe a moron who does not even understand free speech since to you all of a sudden are deeming comments 'inexcusable' if they do not suit you.Richard_Tyndall said:
The only thing I am upset about today is your inexcusable comments about the murdered journalists. I always knew you were a nasty piece of work but hadn't realised just how much of an authoritarian sociopath you really were.Flightpath said:
Oh dear whose upset? The fact that Farage out gurned Clegg is a real shockerRichard_Tyndall said:
Flightpath everyone knows that as far as politics is concerned you couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it so do stop making yourself look a bigger fool than you already are.Flightpath said:
Wot! Debates where Farage showed he was a bigger smartarse than Clegg in the beauty parade stakes? That was of course a triumph.Richard_Tyndall said:
You mean the debates where, by common agreement, Farage wiped the floor with Clegg? I think he could live with that.volcanopete said:The question of extra media attention for Ukip may well work against it than for it if past performance is anything to go.The fact that at the moment Ukip's support comes from the elderly but the party has no pensions policy is a case in point.
Farage could,however, score points off Cameron in the TV debates which is one reason Cameron is trying to avoid the debates completely.It could be more to do with the fact that when he loses it and becomes Flashman,the red and purple faced Bullingdon bully boy,it is very unpleasant for voters to watch.Farage,too,must be careful as he looked well out of shape in the 1st debate with Clegg-a heavily sweating Farage won't attract either.
As is common knowledge here I couldn't care less about Farage generally. But pointing out your epsilon semi-moron tendencies is something that I consider to be a public duty these days.
We have already had another commentator on here delivering a dose of sarcasm against dead French police. But you seem to object to little ol' me saying that it was wrong to murder a satirist irrespective of if the satire was good or bad or justified or not.
Or do you object to me reminding everyone that official muslim spokesmen also called the murders totally unjustified. Perhaps you object to me regularly pointing out that Islam is a medieval religion that needs to grow up.
But as a well known hysteric I guess you just object to everything.0 -
Oh dear it gets worse.
Inadequate’ Hinchingbrooke hospital to be put in special measures
Care Quality Commission publishes scathing report revealing catalogue of serious failings at privately run hospital0 -
It is - of course - worth remembering that even well before Schengen, there were basically no border controls between mainland European countries. If you drove from the UK to Italy, as we used to do regularly in the early 1980s, it was incredibly rare for you to be asked for your passport, even between France and Switzerland. Between Belgium and France it was similar, there would usually be a place where a policeman could stand... but didn't.MikeK said:Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 37s37 seconds ago
Le Pen asked Hollande to suspend Schengen agreement and strip terrorists of citizenship http://rt.com/news/221167-le-pen-france-attacks/ …
Regarding stripping terrorists of their citizenship, aren't they all dead now anyway?
0 -
"Her" low point was trying to justify Mohammed raping a 9 year old.Casino_Royale said:
No. There are posters I disagree with more (EiT, Nick Palmer, BJO, and Roger, to name a few) and I'm on your side of the political spectrum.audreyanne said:
Lol.Casino_Royale said:Cyclefree said:
It led to the freedom to allow you to write rubbish posts like that!audreyanne said:
And look where your goal led: nowhere. It's a blind alley championing something without a core, without a soul. It's vacuous crap.Cyclefree said:Roger said:audreyanne
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
Worst poster of the year award.
Like the proverbial rogue poll = the poster with whom you least agree award.
I just think your posts on here are absolutely dreadful, as is the manner in which you engage with others.
Now, I have other things to do this weekend. Good evening.
0
