Boris Johnson to appear in Crown Court for lying

[Lancasterclaret]

CBI is funded by EU

Is supporting remain

Is not to be trusted like the Bank of England etc

But **** me, posts like this push my "Every Burnley fan is ok" to the absolute limit.

[Lancasterclaret]

That has limits. Zizkov has a genuine, no irony, Nazi. He's 20-odd and proudly wears "Grandad's SS Uniform"

Not likely to encounter many at the Turf, mind

He should take the train to Lidice in it, see how long he lasts then

[Rileybobs]

If you’re looking for evidence (not conjecture) that Ringo has absolutely no self-awareness then this is the thread for you.

[ŽižkovClaret]

He should take the train to Lidice in it, see how long he lasts then

It has been suggested on several occasions, believe me. When he is being particularly obnoxious, we suggest he may find himself waking up there one time

[TVC15]

This is the funniest thread ever, Wrongo literally doesn't know how stupid he is.

But, all good things come to an end, please someone just answer his question...

"Does somebody need to hold a public office to be sued for liable?

Yes Or No?"

Errr me sir me sir (hand up excitedly)

The answer is - it’s a trick question and you can’t be sued for liable whether you hold a public office or not.

I have a follow up Q though

“Does somebody need to hold a public office to be sued for slender ?”

[RingoMcCartney]

Still wooooosh Drongo

Why don’t you actually read your own original posts and work out why myself and everyone else on this thread is laughing at your stupidity.

I said you were correct in saying that people in and out of public office could be sued for libel - that’s on a par with you pointing out that the earth is round.

Do we all have to seriously point it out to you ?!!!

Look back at why I said one of your posts was correct (nobody was arguing with you about that one) and whilst your other ones prove beyond doubt you are thick as mince.

As for the other thread - well done in picking out one post amongst thousands - as usual you completely miss the point...just because you get the odd thing correct doesn’t mean you weren’t wrong in the other 99% of your posts on that thread as myself and everyone else on the thread pointed out to you.

Honestly you do need to seek some medical help - but maybe first work out how to use spell check ?

LIABLE LIABLE LIABLE LIABLE LIABLE LIABLE LIABLE LIABLE

LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL

Yes I get it libel / liable. Hold my hand up. Looking back over the posts it is very funny!

Note to self- when busy juggling work and posting. Read the small print!

So have your minor victory over me not spotting a spelling mistake, despite being given many a hint. Fair enough and fair play.

But, it shows just how many of you I've had the better of when it comes to facts, that rather than discuss the point I'm making and having to admit you're wrong. You're reduced to nit-picking about spelling errors.

You have to admit though, when it comes to those who don't know the difference between evidence and conjecture. Youd forgotten you were actually on my side!

[dsr]

No.

However, those typing liable....do you mean libel?

I think Boris is being charged with 'misconduct in a public office'. Where has libel come from?
This charge is currently being brought under Civil Law, not Criminal Law.
I am not quite sure how the £350m claim has anything to do with his duties as Mayor of London.
So why would he be guilty of misconduct in a public office?
Still a judge seems to think there is a case to answer.

Boris should have qualified it by saying 'But we do get quite a bit of it back'.
Was it just Boris driving around in that bus? Did Gove never ride on that bus?

It's a private prosecution under criminal law.

But your point about the £350m claim being nothing to do with being Mayor is valid. It's also valid to argue that the argument is about semantics, not dishonesty. It's also valid to argue that "misconduct in a public office" carrying up to a life sentence if guilty, is not a charge suitable in dealing with election hyperbole. This case won't reach court because it's stupid. The magistrate or whoever it was who referred it to Crown Court will be re-advised what the rules are and the whole thing will (after lots of expense) will be dropped.

[TVC15]

Yes I get it libel / liable. Hold my hand up. Looking back over the posts it is very funny!

Note to self- when busy juggling work and posting. Read the small print!

So have your minor victory over me not spotting a spelling mistake, despite being given many a hint. Fair enough and fair play.

But, it shows just how many of you I've had the better of when it comes to facts, that rather than discuss the point I'm making and having to admit you're wrong. You're reduced to nit-picking about spelling errors.

You have to admit though, when it comes to those who don't know the difference between evidence and conjecture. Youd forgotten you were actually on my side!

You can’t help yourself can you ?
Already explained that I agreed with you on one point on that thread and thought you were completely wrong on your other points and posted as such several times.
Why do you pick out one post out when I posted many times to say that you can have an evidenced based opinion on something that you thought was going to happen in the future ?
The way you take things out of context it’s a wonder nobody has tried to sue you for liable.

Oh and btw this thread wasn’t about nit picking - it might have been if you had spotted it early doors and corrected it. But instead as usual you imploded and through all that red mist and bullshit you just went on and on...cutting and pasting....cutting and pasting.

Very amusing though...and much more interesting than the actual topic we were supposed to be debating

[RingoMcCartney]

It’s fun though. Watch this.

I'm a misogynistic lunatic who doesn’t understand basic concepts like evidence and parliamentary democracy. Brexit and Nigel Farage are brilliant.

RingoMcCartney wrote:I now realise that I was wrong all along. I’d like to apologise to everyone I tried (and failed) to belittle. Bring on an informed referendum.

"Misogynist"


Evidence?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I love the whole idea that Wrongo is somehow on here every day pwning the people who disagree with him over his Brexit fantasies.

The fact is we've been drinking our delicious victory glasses of remain champagne every night since March 29th while the cheap, nasty, celebratory bottle of White Lightning for the Leavers still sits, unopened in the pantry, as lonely and unloved as Theresa May.

Just remember, there hasn't been a Brexit and there won't be a Brexit because it is as it always was, the intelligent will fix the mistake of the stupid.

[RingoMcCartney]

You can’t help yourself can you ?
Already explained that I agreed with you on one point on that thread and thought you were completely wrong on your other points and posted as such several times.
Why do you pick out one post out when I posted many times to say that you can have an evidenced based opinion on something that you thought was going to happen in the future ?
The way you take things out of context it’s a wonder nobody has tried to sue you for liable.

Oh and btw this thread wasn’t about nit picking - it might have been if you had spotted it early doors and corrected it. But instead as usual you imploded and through all that red mist and bullshit you just went on and on...cutting and pasting....cutting and pasting.

Very amusing though...and much more interesting than the actual topic we were supposed to be debating

Red mist!? Don't think so.

Cutting n pasting helps to prove remoaners wrong.

Now I've come on and admitted I messed up. It funny. But why do you think remoaners can't simply swallow their pride and admit they're wrong.

Burnley Ace - will not admit the majority of MPS voted for an EU referendum.

Aggi - despite remembering that I'd said "Bercow would force a 2nd referendum " to which I agreed and said I should've said "help to bring about" a 2nd referendum. When I pointed out in the very same conversation I'd pointed out that Bercow announced millions were being put aside, in March 2018, for eu elections that we weren't supposed to be taking part in. He said it was just "contingency planning and that it was a million it was 800,000" . He, couldn't remember!!!!!!!

Aggi- claimed what I'd said was "outright lies" this week. I used specialists legal Professor quotes and the government's own legal advisors quotes. And he still can't admit I was right.

Martin_p - claimed he had evidence that " leaving the EU will not help to stop people trafficking , modern day slavery and people exploitation " and I only had an opinion. I agreed, I did only have an opinion, but despite many many opportunities, he's yet to provide a single scrap of evidence to disprove what I said. Cos there is none.

Martin_p- cannot bring himself to admit that my prediction Bercow has had a pivotal role and acted unilaterally. Despite previously claiming "Wrongo- Bercow cannot act on his own he's just a facilitator "

Lancasterclaret- actually blocked me after I used H.M. Treasury figures and Full Fact to prove that EU regional funding money is simply UK tax payers money simply coming back in the rebate we get from Brussels.

Lancaster Claret- claimed I was "making things up " then used the same legal and specialist facts to prove him wrong. Did he concede I was right? No

Burnley Ace, ZizkovClaret, Greenmile, and many many many more. Refusing to accept that what they claim to be evidence is nothing more than conjecture.

So I get it I really do. I messed up and didn't spot a spelling mistake and I looked stupid. I'll take that one on the chin.

I'll admit I was wrong it's a pity the ones that had a laugh at my expense, and fair play to them, can't do the same.

[Lancasterclaret]

Er, I admitted I was wrong.

But you never read the replies, so you must have missed it. Thats part of the problem here I suspect.

And I blocked you because you became far too personal. I'd block you again if you became that personal again.

Not 100% sure on the others to be fair, but I suspect your recollection of events is not correct.

[aggi]

Aggi - despite remembering that I'd said "Bercow would force a 2nd referendum " to which I agreed and said I should've said "help to bring about" a 2nd referendum. When I pointed out in the very same conversation I'd pointed out that Bercow announced millions were being put aside, in March 2018, for eu elections that we weren't supposed to be taking part in. He said it was just "contingency planning and that it was a million it was 800,000" . He, couldn't remember!!!!!!!

Just to pick up one example here, Ringo's response to me saying that he'd said "Bercow would force a 2nd referendum" was

"I didn't say that. And you know it." (Here for those that like stuff like evidence http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 78#p925377" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

which is a little different to his above recollection and why I don't put much stock in what he recalls.

[RingoMcCartney]

Just to pick up one example here, Ringo's response to me saying that he'd said "Bercow would force a 2nd referendum" was

"I didn't say that. And you know it." (Here for those that like stuff like evidence http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 78#p925377" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

which is a little different to his above recollection and why I don't put much stock in what he recalls.

Your memory aggi. Dear oh dear. Youve already forgotten that I said " I should have said 'help to bring about a 2nd referendum ' " I've said it previously and said it today, it's only a few posts back!

Now, why can't you admit When I pointed out in the very same conversation I'd pointed out that Bercow announced millions were being put aside, in March 2018, for eu elections that we weren't supposed to be taking part in. You said it was just "contingency planning and that it was a million it was 800,000" .

Now times past and my prediction has been proven bang on.

You can't can you , you simply cannot bring yourself round to admitting it!

Why? Because I've been proven right.

[RingoMcCartney]

Er, I admitted I was wrong.

But you never read the replies, so you must have missed it. Thats part of the problem here I suspect.

And I blocked you because you became far too personal. I'd block you again if you became that personal again.

Not 100% sure on the others to be fair, but I suspect your recollection of events is not correct.

You didn't and where have you said , in light of the government's own legal advice and that of specialists professors that I provided , that actually, the EU will not allow state aid to save British Steel. And I was right and not "making things up " as you claimed. Where?

[aggi]

Your memory aggi. Dear oh dear. Youve already forgotten that I said " I should have said 'help to bring about a 2nd referendum ' " I've said it previously and said it today, it's only a few posts back!

Now, why can't you admit When I pointed out in the very same conversation I'd pointed out that Bercow announced millions were being put aside, in March 2018, for eu elections that we weren't supposed to be taking part in. You said it was just "contingency planning and that it was a million it was 800,000" .

Now times past and my prediction has been proven bang on.

You can't can you , you simply cannot bring yourself round to admitting it!

Why? Because I've been proven right.

Well yes, but you denied all knowledge of it initially. "I didn't say that. And you know it." is quite different to "I should have said 'help to bring about a 2nd referendum'".

If I remembered saying it was just a contingency plan I wouldn't have any issue with that. We had loads of contingency plans that cost a lot more money. Did Operation Yellowhammer represent an establishment conspiracy to have a no-deal Brexit? If not why are you banging on about the reverse?

However, I don't remember saying it and, as illustrated above, your recollection is decidedly shaky so I wouldn't be willing to trust that.

Anyway, I think this thread has been derailed enough with the Ringo is always right game.

[TVC15]

Drongo - given the amount of time you spend on this board going back over old threads to try and prove you were right would it not be better to employ the services of a liable lawyer ?

[Greenmile]

"Misogynist"


Evidence?

Your constant use of “ladies” as a pejorative.

Edit - I like how you’ve not asked for evidence of my claim that you’re a lunatic, though.

[RingoMcCartney]

Well yes, but you denied all knowledge of it initially. "I didn't say that. And you know it." is quite different to "I should have said 'help to bring about a 2nd referendum'".

If I remembered saying it was just a contingency plan I wouldn't have any issue with that. We had loads of contingency plans that cost a lot more money. Did Operation Yellowhammer represent an establishment conspiracy to have a no-deal Brexit? If not why are you banging on about the reverse?

However, I don't remember saying it and, as illustrated above, your recollection is decidedly shaky so I wouldn't be willing to trust that.

Anyway, I think this thread has been derailed enough with the Ringo is always right game.

How very very very convenient aggi! You don't remember! Let's be honest we both know you do and we both know why you won't admit it!

Anyway, you claimed what I'd said was "outright lies" this week. I used specialists legal Professor quotes and the government's own legal advisors quotes. You still can't admit I was right. 

Now "outright lies " was your claim when I said the EU says "No can do UK " re bailing out the British Steel . I also said "EU says that's fine " when it came to bailing out the banks.

You even went as far as claiming

[quote="aggi"]The government opted to bail out the banks first and deal with the repercussions later."[/quote]



Taken from the left wing website, Labour Heartlands, that you've clearly ignored 

https://labourheartlands.com/british-st" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... o-save-it/

Would it be against EU regulations to provide funding to British Steel in a time of need?

Unfortunately, yes. The fact that all the economic factors go against the UK steel industry is not relevant, nor is the potentially devastating impact on the wider local economy were it to close. The EU has already ruled on this: in January 2016 the competition commissioner ruled that the Belgian government had illegally provided €211m to steel companies in one of its depressed regions, and ordered that the money be repaid. She also announced an investigation into €2bn of similar aid given by the Italian government to support its steel industry.

So how come the banks were bailed out?

There is a fundamental difference between banks and steel. If the UK, or Belgian, or Italian steel industry has to shut down, then other steel companies will pick up their contracts. Such commercial competition is the thrust behind most of the legislation: saving any of the ailing companies would adversely affect the other steel providers, who would not be able to take those contracts. In the case of the banks, their mutual interdependence made that impossible. Because they had all lent to each other, the collapse of any of the banks would have led to the collapse of the whole financial system. So, saving the banks was not anti-competitive, it was in fact supporting the market economy.


Then the EU bent the rules for the banks?

No, it did not bend the rules, it used provisions in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines which enable State aid in certain very limited circumstances. Unfortunately, this would be difficult to apply to steel.

So you were spouting "outright lies " aggi !!!!The labour government did not "opt to bail out the banks first and deal with the repercussions later."

I also quoted several lines from the government's own legal advisors that confirmed and proved me correct.

But you will not, true to form, under any circumstances, admit I was right and you were wrong.

[RingoMcCartney]

Your constant use of “ladies” as a pejorative.

Edit - I like how you’ve not asked for evidence of my claim that you’re a lunatic, though.

I am not using "ladies" as a pejorative. You are perceiving it as such.

Would you perceive "lads" less pejorative?

[RingoMcCartney]

Drongo - given the amount of time you spend on this board going back over old threads to try and prove you were right would it not be better to employ the services of a liable lawyer ?

Thats actually funny!

[Greenmile]

....I also quoted several lines from the government's own legal advisors that confirmed and proved me correct...

But how do we know that those legal advisors ever said what you “quoted” them as saying? After all, you’ve got form for fabricating quotes now.

[Imploding Turtle]

How very very very convenient aggi! You don't remember! Let's be honest we both know you do and we both know why you won't admit it!

...

Quote him. If you think he's selectively forgetting something then quote him and prove he said it instead of trying to imply malice like an idiot.

[Greenmile]

I am not using "ladies" as a pejorative. You are perceiving it as such.

Would you perceive "lads" less pejorative?

If you used “lads” to refer to a group made up mostly of women, then it might be pejorative, yes.

But you don’t do that, do you? You use “ladies” as an insult because you think folk will be upset when you refer to them as women, because you’re a misogynist.

[Greenmile]

Quote him. If you think he's selectively forgetting something then quote him and prove he said it instead of trying to imply malice like an idiot.

What’s the point? He’d just make up a quote anyway.

[Imploding Turtle]

But how do we know that those legal advisors ever said what you “quoted” them as saying? After all, you’ve got form for fabricating quotes now.

Like this one:

"IF WE VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE AN EMERGENCY BUDGET THE MORNING FOLLOWING THE REFERENDUM " George Osborne 16th June 2016

I wonder if Ringo doesn't know that you can literally type a quote into google to find out whether it's a real quote or not.



1.31 seconds is all it took for Google to prove that he fabricated a quote. Again.

It's as if he knows that his arguments can't win based on their own merits so he has to fabricate and lie in order to convince himself that his arguments are good.

[RingoMcCartney]

If you used “lads” to refer to a group made up mostly of women, then it might be pejorative, yes.

But you don’t do that, do you? You use “ladies” as an insult because you think folk will be upset when you refer to them as women, because you’re a misogynist.

I'll ask you again.

Would you perceive "lads" less pejorative if I used it on here?

[RingoMcCartney]

Like this one:



I wonder if Ringo doesn't know that you can literally type a quote into google to find out whether it's a real quote or not.



1.31 seconds is all it took for Google to prove that he fabricated a quote. Again.

May not be verbatim. But close enough for here.

[Greenmile]

I'll ask you again.

Would you perceive "lads" less pejorative if I used it on here?

If you used it on here in the same manner that you use “ladies”, it wouldn’t be pejorative.

Let’s see if you can work out why that’s the case - there’s a clue in my last post.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'll ask you again.

Would you perceive "lads" less pejorative if I used it on here?

He answered your question. Inconveniently for you he also explained it, which you can't reasonably take issue with, which is why you're repeating your question in the hope for a less detailed answer in order to attempt to misrepresent him. He won't oblige and you'll proceed instead to fabricate a quote in some way in order to misrepresent him anyway, so just get on with it so i can mock you for it already.

[Greenmile]

I'm a misogynistic lunatic who doesn’t understand basic concepts like evidence and parliamentary democracy.

Maybe not verbatim, but close enough for on here (apparently),

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

He answered your question. Inconveniently for you he also explained it, which you can't reasonably take issue with, which is why you're repeating your question in the hope for a less detailed answer in order to attempt to misrepresent him. He won't oblige and you'll proceed instead to fabricate a quote in some way in order to misrepresent him anyway, so just get on with it so i can mock you for it already.

Mocking Wrongo is like shooting a very large, stupid fish in a very small barrel.
With a bazooka.

[Imploding Turtle]

May not be verbatim. But close enough for here.

So, you lied. You fabricated a quote to make your argument appear stronger. That's called lying. How can anyone on here trust anything you say when you so blatantly fabricate quotes in order to strengthen your argument? What else have you made up? Are any of the "facts" and "figures" you post actually real? Which ones are real and which ones are faked in order to make your argument seem more robust?

This is how adults debate things. We exchange facts and make up our own minds. No one can trust the facts you present because of how much and how obviously you make them up. This means an adult debate with you isn't possible.

[ŽižkovClaret]

From memory i was purely taking the micky so not sure where evidence comes into it with my posts haha

[RingoMcCartney]

If you used it on here in the same manner that you use “ladies”, it wouldn’t be pejorative.

Let’s see if you can work out why that’s the case - there’s a clue in my last post.

Why would "lads" not be, where as "ladies" would be?

You tell me.

[RingoMcCartney]

So, you lied. You fabricated a quote to make your argument appear stronger. That's called lying. How can anyone on here trust anything you say when you so blatantly fabricate quotes in order to strengthen your argument? What else have you made up? Are any of the "facts" and "figures" you post actually real? Which ones are real and which ones are faked in order to make your argument seem more robust?

This is how adults debate things. We exchange facts and make up our own minds. No one can trust the facts you present because of how much and how obviously you make them up. This means an adult debate with you isn't possible.

Osborne claimed there'd have to be an emergency budget following a vote to Leave.

You probably missed it due to being deep in the bowels of the Turtle Bunker.

[Imploding Turtle]

Osborne claimed there'd have to be an emergency budget following a vote to Leave.

You probably missed it due to being deep in the bowels of the Turtle Bunker.

I'm not arguing that. But you made up a quote, plastered it on here in all caps and bold font so that it stands out, surrounded it with quotation marks to present it as a direct quote and then even attributed it to a person and a date. And yet the quote is a complete fabrication from you in an attempt to suggest that the private prosecution of Boris Johnson is hypocritical when George Osborne isn't being prosecuted for lying with the quote you've just completely ******* made up.

[Greenmile]

Why would "lads" not be, where as "ladies" would be?

You tell me.

FFS - do I really have to break things down into terms a toddler would understand?

OK - The reason is that the large majority of posters on here are male, and you know this. Referring to a group of men as “lads” is not pejorative. Referring to them as “ladies” is both a pejorative and shows you up as a misogynist. I’m really not sure I can make this any simpler for you.

Why do you think you use the word “ladies” like you do? If you think it’s just a joke, please explain why the joke is funny (ie how it works as a joke).

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

This means an adult debate with you isn't possible.

Which is why I blocked him years ago, he adds nothing to any debate.

[RingoMcCartney]

FFS - do I really have to break things down into terms a toddler would understand?

OK - The reason is that the large majority of posters on here are male, and you know this. Referring to a group of men as “lads” is not pejorative. Referring to them as “ladies” is both a pejorative and shows you up as a misogynist. I’m really not sure I can make this any simpler for you.

Why do you think you use the word “ladies” like you do? If you think it’s just a joke, please explain why the joke is funny (ie how it works as a joke).

"The large majority of posters on here are male and you know it"


Do I know it"!!!!!!!??????

Do you "know it"!!!!!!!!?????

The one and only thing that you and I actually know is there posting name. TVC15, Greenmile, Lancaster claret, Martin_p, ZizkovClaret, aggi, burnley Ace, Iwillveyourwill, imploding Turtle (or any of their aliases!)
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest their gender.

You're making lazy assumptions.

How do you know what gender I am? Ringo and Paul McCartney are both male. Doesn't necessarily follow that because I've chosen a name based on theirs that one should, in a misogynistic way, assume, therfore that I am does it.

Youre making lazy stereotypical, assumptions about the gender and background of people.

You, Greenmile, are the misogynist by displaying clear and unambiguous, unconscious bias in assuming that , somehow, I'm addressing males.

It's utterly sexist and misogynistic to make the lazy assumption that "ladies" is being used pejoratively when I'm using it as a term of endearment.

You believing that "ladies" can be used as a derogatory or pejorative term when I I'm addressing people of whom I nor you, can have no idea of their gender. Yet believing "lads" would be. Shows there's only one misogynist here.


You.

[Rick_Muller]

triggered.gif (1.1 MiB) Viewed 1314 times

[Greenmile]

"The large majority of posters on here are male and you know it"

Do I!!!!!!!??????

Do you!!!!!!!!!?????

The one and only thing that you and I actually know is there posting name. TVC15, Greenmile, Lancaster claret, Martin_p, ZizkovClaret, aggi, burnley Ace, Iwillveyourwill, imploding Turtle (or any of their aliases!)
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest their gender.

You're making lazy assumptions.

How do you know what gender I am?

Your making lazy stereotypical, assumptions about the gender and background of people.

You, Greenmile, are the misogynist by displaying clear and unambiguous, unconscious bias in assuming that , somehow, I'm addressing males.

It's utterly sexist and misogynistic to make the lazy assumption that "ladies" is being used pejoratively when I'm using it as a term of endearment.

You believing that "ladies" can be used as a derogatory or pejorative term when I I'm addressing people of whom I nor you, can have no idea of their gender. Yet believing "lads" would be. Shows there's only one misogynist here.


You.

Answer my question - Why do you think you use the word “ladies” like you do? If you think it’s just a joke, please explain why the joke is funny (ie how it works as a joke).

And if you think there is nothing to suggest the gender of Martin P, or Claret Tony, or Rick Muller, or Tricky Trevor, or frankinwales, or Burypaddy, for example, then you’re even dimmer than I thought you were, which is some going.

The only posters I know to be female on here are Healeywoodclaret, Spades, Bluelab and Elizabeth (ha ha - just my little joke). They are easily outnumbered by posters who are evidently male.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Answer my question - Why do you think you use the word “ladies” like you do? If you think it’s just a joke, please explain why the joke is funny (ie how it works as a joke).

And if you think there is nothing to suggest the gender of Martin P, or Claret Tony, or Rick Muller, or Tricky Trevor, or frankinwales, or Burypaddy, for example, then you’re even dimmer than I thought you were, which is some going.

The only posters I know to be female on here are Healeywoodclaret, Spades, Bluelab and Elizabeth (ha ha - just my little joke). They are easily outnumbered by posters who are evidently male.

I'm a bloke but my T-Rex is female.

[Greenmile]

....You, Greenmile, are the misogynist by displaying clear and unambiguous, unconscious bias in assuming that , somehow, I'm addressing males....Shows there's only one misogynist here...

...
Aggi - despite remembering that I'd said "Bercow would force a 2nd referendum " to which I agreed and said I should've said "help to bring about" a 2nd referendum. When I pointed out in the very same conversation I'd pointed out that Bercow announced millions were being put aside, in March 2018, for eu elections that we weren't supposed to be taking part in. He said it was just "contingency planning and that it was a million it was 800,000" . He, couldn't remember!!!!!!!

Aggi- claimed what I'd said was "outright lies" this week. I used specialists legal Professor quotes and the government's own legal advisors quotes. And he still can't admit I was right.

Martin_p - claimed he had evidence that " leaving the EU will not help to stop people trafficking , modern day slavery and people exploitation " and I only had an opinion. I agreed, I did only have an opinion, but despite many many opportunities, he's yet to provide a single scrap of evidence to disprove what I said. Cos there is none.

Martin_p- cannot bring himself to admit that my prediction Bercow has had a pivotal role and acted unilaterally. Despite previously claiming "Wrongo- Bercow cannot act on his own he's just a facilitator "

Lancasterclaret- actually blocked me after I used H.M. Treasury figures and Full Fact to prove that EU regional funding money is simply UK tax payers money simply coming back in the rebate we get from Brussels.

Lancaster Claret- claimed I was "making things up " then used the same legal and specialist facts to prove him wrong. Did he concede I was right? No...

Looks like you're still a misogynist even using your own bizarre metric.

Edit - interestingly, it is mainly the posters referred to by you as "he", above, that you regularly call "ladies" in an attempt to belittle them, so you're also still a misogynist by my - far less bizzare - metric.

[RingoMcCartney]

Answer my question - Why do you think you use the word “ladies” like you do? If you think it’s just a joke, please explain why the joke is funny (ie how it works as a joke).

And if you think there is nothing to suggest the gender of Martin P, or Claret Tony, or Rick Muller, or Tricky Trevor, or frankinwales, or Burypaddy, for example, then you’re even dimmer than I thought you were, which is some going.

The only posters I know to be female on here are Healeywoodclaret, Spades, Bluelab and Elizabeth (ha ha - just my little joke). They are easily outnumbered by posters who are evidently male.

You do not "know" anything about the gender of any poster on here.

"When referring to a group of men"

Lazy outdated stereotypical assumptions.

Unconscious bias.


"Referring to them as “ladies” is a pejorative"

Not if it's being used as a term of endearment.
You're projecting Greenmile. You're utterly oblivious to it.


"The large majority of posters on here are male and you know it"

Pure sexist presumptions

Totally misogynistic suppositions.


Your previous post is dripping with the very thing you've accused me of!

Hoist by you're own, misogynistic, unconscious bias riddled sexist petard Greenmile!

What a great way to start the weekend.

Talking of which. Have a great one ladies ( suck it up Greenmile you neanderthal misogynist)

[RingoMcCartney]

Looks like you're still a misogynist even using your own bizarre metric.

Edit - interestingly, it is mainly the posters referred to by you as "he", above, that you regularly call "ladies" in an attempt to belittle them, so you're also still a misogynist by my - far less bizzare - metric.

Quicker to type "he" than "she" worse still, "they". I make enough spelling mistakes as it is.

What's you're excuse for lazy stereotypical sexist assumptions , unconscious bias and pure misogynistic bigotry?


Toddle pip

[Tall Paul]

lol Ringo.

I love Fridays.

[TVC15]

Toddle Pip ?
He has his own language - Wrongish

[Burnley Ace]

Burnley Ace - will not admit the majority of MPS voted for an EU Referendum.

Burnley Ace, ZizkovClaret, Greenmile, and many many many more. Refusing to accept that what they claim to be evidence is nothing more than conjecture.

I was going to stay out of this as there are enough people pointing out your ignorance. I can’t be bothered to reiterate the facts, you are just boring now.

[Lancasterclaret]

To be fair to Ringo, this is what the likes of Bannon et al tell people to do.

Just keep repeating the same lies till everybody else gives up.

Thats why people like me won't ever stop pointing out the lies, because its not because Ringo and others are thick, its because they knows that if he keeps repeating it, people will begin to accept it as the truth, even though its a lie.