Page 190 of 265

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:18 pm
by Max B Gold
235 pages.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:20 pm
by tuffers#1
CEB wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 1:58 pm Yes, I’m wildly back tracking by falsely claiming it’s a joke. This is definitely true because I have a track record of giving a sh*t if someone doesn’t like what I say
I couldnt give a f#ck what you have to say about anything, but I Would like an explanation of how an Image of starmer makes him look like a peado as nobody else sees it !

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:22 pm
by CEB
You don’t give a f*** what I have to say, but you also want me to explain my words to you.

Makes sense.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:28 pm
by tuffers#1
CEB wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:22 pm You don’t give a f*** what I have to say, but you also want me to explain my words to you.

Makes sense.
Your statement Poppit , it shouldnt be difficult to explain "image makes Starmer look like a peado " . HOW ?

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:35 pm
by CEB
Your question mark suggests you’re interested in what I have to say. You’ve previously said you don’t give a f*** what I have to say.

You’re not very bright once you get a bee in your bonnet, are you?

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:42 pm
by tuffers#1
CEB wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:35 pm Your question mark suggests you’re interested in what I have to say. You’ve previously said you don’t give a f*** what I have to say.

You’re not very bright once you get a bee in your bonnet, are you?
I'm interested in people who libel & slander those who are innocent poppit . Youve never argued with me before have you :D (not very bright) oh this going to be fun . Still no explanation I see .

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:20 pm
by CEB
I’m assuming you’re not qualified in law.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:22 pm
by tuffers#1
What does that have to do with anything poppit ?
Do tell

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:38 pm
by CEB
You don’t see what knowledge of the law has to do with suggesting that someone is committing libel or slander when it’s demonstrably not accurate?

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 4:27 pm
by tuffers#1
I think you'll find it is petal .
😁

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2023 4:57 pm
by greyhound
cheap politics.
5 years before Sunak even became an MP let alone prime minister.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:52 am
by Dunners
Heh. Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing biscuits.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:15 pm
by Friend or fart
Diane Abbott suspended from the Party for racist comments

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:04 pm
by faldO
Friend or faux wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:15 pm Diane Abbott suspended from the Party for racist comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978

It's ok though, she later tweeted to say she was withdrawing her remarks and apologised "for any anguish caused".

Let's move on, there's no antisemitism in the Labour Party.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:23 pm
by Dunners
Her explanation actually makes things worse. "My racist letter was sent before anyone with any sense had a chance to edit it."


Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:26 pm
by StillSpike
I obviously don't know how the letters' pages are edited, etc, but I can't really believe her explanation here. Surely, if you were the letters' editor at the Observer, and any MP wrote you such a letter "from HoC" you'd check that it was real, and really what they wanted to say, wouldn't you? Otherwise, what's to stop anyone scripting up a racist diatribe and sending it in the name of any MP.

There must have been some to-and-fro between their offices, no?

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:29 pm
by CEB
Pretty much all of the usual left wing voices I look at seem to have matches to referee at the moment, so their takes on this story remains unknown.
The exception being Owen Jones, whose instinct for self preservation outpaces his instinct for consistency or coherence

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:36 pm
by Dunners
She said their quiet bit out loud.

I remember when many of them used to consider her as Home Secretary material. With a straight face. And without any sense of irony.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:54 pm
by CEB
To be fair, there was a period where she was experiencing such sustained attacks that on a human level, defending her against some awful stuff was absolutely the right thing to do. And some of the extrapolations from some flustered moments were exaggerated. But ultimately, she’s not got a sharp mind and some of her views are well dodge - it’s just that she’s packaged them quite well

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 2:02 pm
by Dunners
Yep, some of the stuff I've seen aimed at her is vile. And that's just what has been made public.

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:18 pm
by Dunners
FFS Starmer. Not even trying to win the cabbie vote anymore.

Image

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:58 pm
by Proposition Joe
Isn't this already illegal?

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:04 pm
by CEB
Maybe a silly question, since both apply to literally every cabbie, but do they mean spiking of drinks, or spiking the price during busy periods?

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:39 pm
by Admin
CEB wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:04 pm Maybe a silly question, since both apply to literally every cabbie, but do they mean spiking of drinks, or spiking the price during busy periods?
It's the drinks one. https://news.sky.com/story/spiking-woul ... s-12865885

Re: Labour Watch

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:40 pm
by CEB
So it’s not already illegal? Bloody hell