|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 4, 2023 13:23:43 GMT
or 3 they had paedos in Labour who they didn't want exposing.
Maybe dead nag should watch this that Red Rack put up.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 4, 2023 13:25:25 GMT
Do you have proof they did? Or is your post just another example of nasty right-wing insinuation. Ask your carer what question marks mean and when they eventually get you to understand maybe you could read the relevant posts . Words don't exist in isolation, --- are you saying the collective labour party are so stupid that it didn’t know about Savilles crimes? ---, they carry meanings and the insinuation before you added your question mark was clear, either that or your Grammar school education let you down on your comprehension. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 4, 2023 13:27:46 GMT
Stop insinuating outright lies. Its just nasty. The people who protected Saville were those who worked with or by him and knew what he was doing. No one knows just who those people were or what their political allegiances were. Poor old c2. He doesn't realise how others see him. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Apr 4, 2023 13:29:54 GMT
Starmer hates it when we are reminded of his times as DPP, how inept he was, one of the reasons Saville got of scott free, was watching a interview the other night with Saville with Andrew Neil of all people, he normally grills people, it was clear back then in 1995 he was a dirty peodo, and people like him are still protected by the establishment. Stop insinuating outright lies. Its just nasty. The people who protected Saville were those who worked with or by him and knew what he was doing. No one knows just who those people were or what their political allegiances were. Of course people knew who they were, they could have brought down political parties had they been exposed, most knew about Saville and most knew about Smith, and Saville all but threatened all of them which would include, Tories, Labour, Lib-dems if he's going down they are going with him.
No one is falling for your naivness, you pretend to know it was the Tories, but your mind is blank when it comes to Labour and the Lib-dems, even though your mind is blank most of the time, it's still selective.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 4, 2023 13:30:59 GMT
Stop insinuating outright lies. Its just nasty. The people who protected Saville were those who worked with or by him and knew what he was doing. No one knows just who those people were or what their political allegiances were. When the insinuations are made at Labour See2 objects. When they are made at the Tories see2 ignores it . Hypocrisy? , you come across as being really stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 4, 2023 13:37:30 GMT
Stop insinuating outright lies. Its just nasty. The people who protected Saville were those who worked with or by him and knew what he was doing. No one knows just who those people were or what their political allegiances were. Of course people knew who they were, they could have brought down political parties had they been exposed, most knew about Saville and most knew about Smith, and Saville all but threatened all of them which would include, Tories, Labour, Lib-dems if he's going down they are going with him.
No one is falling for your naivness, you pretend to know it was the Tories, but your mind is blank when it comes to Labour and the Lib-dems, even though your mind is blank most of the time, it's still selective.
What people are you referring to? I don't pretend to know "it was the Tories". This is the problem of trying to debate with people like yourself, they confuse their own imaginings with any facts that are available as if what goes on in their imagination is also actually fact. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 4, 2023 13:40:39 GMT
When the insinuations are made at Labour See2 objects. When they are made at the Tories see2 ignores it . Hypocrisy? Poor old c2. He doesn't realise how others see him. I do realise how the not so bright Righties, like yourself see me, and that gives me the confidence to know I'm on the right track |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 4, 2023 14:51:53 GMT
Ask your carer what question marks mean and when they eventually get you to understand maybe you could read the relevant posts . Words don't exist in isolation, --- are you saying the collective labour party are so stupid that it didn’t know about Savilles crimes? ---, they carry meanings and the insinuation before you added your question mark was clear, either that or your Grammar school education let you down on your comprehension. Once again see2 hasn’t read the posts that are relevant to the post he blindly criticise. I was responding to an insinuation against the Tories as a group. It’s like I’m trying to teach your my elderly dementia ridden grandad how to tie his shoe laces . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 4, 2023 17:36:22 GMT
Words don't exist in isolation, --- are you saying the collective labour party are so stupid that it didn’t know about Savilles crimes? ---, they carry meanings and the insinuation before you added your question mark was clear, either that or your Grammar school education let you down on your comprehension. Once again see2 hasn’t read the posts that are relevant to the post he blindly criticise. I was responding to an insinuation against the Tories as a group. It’s like I’m trying to teach your my elderly dementia ridden grandad how to tie his shoe laces . You must admit that your comment on the Labour party is rather insinuative, so I am still unsure as to what was going on in your mind when you posted it. But I acknowledge, that because of the workload I am under at present, and my absence from the forum, my question might have been out of context. Only you will know so maybe ask yourself, were you insinuating that "the collective labour party are so stupid that it didn’t know about Savilles crimes?" meaning that they did know? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 4, 2023 17:48:24 GMT
Once again see2 hasn’t read the posts that are relevant to the post he blindly criticise. I was responding to an insinuation against the Tories as a group. It’s like I’m trying to teach your my elderly dementia ridden grandad how to tie his shoe laces . You must admit that your comment on the Labour party is rather insinuative, so I am still unsure as to what was going on in your mind when you posted it. But I acknowledge, that because of the workload I am under at present, and my absence from the forum, my question might have been out of context.Only you will know so maybe ask yourself, were you insinuating that "the collective labour party are so stupid that it didn’t know about Savilles crimes?" meaning that they did know? If it's counting your moolah thet's stretching you, I'm your man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2023 17:52:16 GMT
Pure trolling, nothing to add to the thread. Is this how some react when their Blairite darling is bang to rights on flip flopping on a major issue? Don't be silly, there was no problem arising from the video, I think you flip flopped instead of thinking before you posted. Where's the thumbs down button? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 4, 2023 17:52:28 GMT
Once again see2 hasn’t read the posts that are relevant to the post he blindly criticise. I was responding to an insinuation against the Tories as a group. It’s like I’m trying to teach your my elderly dementia ridden grandad how to tie his shoe laces . You must admit that your comment on the Labour party is rather insinuative, so I am still unsure as to what was going on in your mind when you posted it. But I acknowledge, that because of the workload I am under at present, and my absence from the forum, my question might have been out of context. Only you will know so maybe ask yourself, were you insinuating that "the collective labour party are so stupid that it didn’t know about Savilles crimes?" meaning that they did know? Your question was not only out of context , it was a knee jerk reflection of your immature mindset. You still don’t understand the context of your question to me . I can only guess it is because you are either too lazy to read the relevant posts or that you realise how stupid you have made yourself look and are trying to save face by obfuscating. Either way , you have earned a ❤️. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 4, 2023 17:55:50 GMT
You must admit that your comment on the Labour party is rather insinuative, so I am still unsure as to what was going on in your mind when you posted it. But I acknowledge, that because of the workload I am under at present, and my absence from the forum, my question might have been out of context. Only you will know so maybe ask yourself, were you insinuating that "the collective labour party are so stupid that it didn’t know about Savilles crimes?" meaning that they did know? Your question was not only out of context , it was a knee jerk reflection of your immature mindset. You still don’t understand the context of your question to me . I can only guess it is because you are either too lazy to read the relevant posts or that you realise how stupid you have made yourself look and are trying to save face by obfuscating. Either way , you have earned a ❤️. To go along with this.....LOL
 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2023 18:40:46 GMT
Starmer always was a two faced, unprincipled, conniving liar. Many of us have left the party because of him and those around him. I for one will never vote for a party led by him or anyone like him So you are voting for the Tories, who are even worse? I am voting for neither. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 4, 2023 19:37:45 GMT
So you are voting for the Tories, who are even worse? I am voting for neither. Ah so you've decided on Reform, good man. |
|
