|
Post by manmarking on Jun 27, 2017 19:04:08 GMT
The BBC have lurched very far to the left recently and will do so even more now the DU 'abolish the licence fee' P have a say in Downing Street. Yeah, you're 'right' , since the beeb stopped sucking up to you far right flag wavers, it must be really annoying that they're just right wing. Oh well, it can't really be a surprise that people hold different views that you? And that all your shouting and name calling hasn't changed their minds? Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong? No no never, can't be, you're always right, never made a mistake in your life. What's the word for people like you? I think the word is "uninformed" To be fair to owd todger, the BBC is left-leaning socially. It's very right-on. Too right-on in many ways. But todge can't get his head round the concept that a person or organisation can be socially leftist but economically rightist. I've explained this to him myriad times but he prefers to eschew my teachings in favour of the Twitter feeds of grey -skinned frothing adenoidal imbeciles like Paul Joseph Watson. And as you say, he's not exactly Mr Humility either. Each to their own On balance, both left and right are constantly moaning about BBC bias so to be fair, they're probably doing something right
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 27, 2017 18:48:16 GMT
To be fair, the beeb is chock full of young, urban uni-educated feminists, anarchists and champagne socailists (ie. the Corbyn crowd), so is it any real surprise that the old Commie is idolised by those who work there. Its probably also why they wouldn't take on a non uni educated, white, working class, tory boy when I applied for a job with them a while back - because I am the antithesis of everything they stand for, and I believe they should have to make their own money rather than hitch a ride on the tax-payers back... The BBC's own Political Editor was recently sanctioned for misreporting what Jeremy Corbyn said on shoot to kill. So evidently not that biased towards him. But don't let that get you downbeat about your job application rejection - if it helps your self-esteem, believe whatever gibberish you like
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 27, 2017 18:28:46 GMT
You're absolutely right, fella. We are excited by your return. And I feel sure we're not the only ones. Why, carps will be positively wanking himself into a trance-like state A word to the wise though: I've not seen any detractors on here In fact, anything but. Just a few posters genuinely pleased to have you back in the fold, doling out your signature insightful, hard-hitting opinions. Welcome back, you beautiful old shithouse; we've missed you Is this that mumf bloke? The very same mate. One of the board's big cheeses. He goes way back. Never shy with an opinion. To use a music metaphor, Status Quo have just unexpectedly taken to the main stage Likes: football, dogs, walking Dislikes: gays, Asians, do-gooders A top poster all told, and as I've said on another thread - wears his heart on his sleeve. Irrespective of whether you agree with his prejudices or not, you have to respect that honesty
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 27, 2017 11:55:32 GMT
X Sorry ....I thought you were referring to some of my detractors on the other thread .... Best not go there ....they have already got themselves into a feverish lather . Infamy ...Infamy ....They've all got it in for me . Ha ha ha ....Brilliant . You're absolutely right, fella. We are excited by your return. And I feel sure we're not the only ones. Why, carps will be positively wanking himself into a trance-like state A word to the wise though: I've not seen any detractors on here In fact, anything but. Just a few posters genuinely pleased to have you back in the fold, doling out your signature insightful, hard-hitting opinions. Welcome back, you beautiful old shithouse; we've missed you
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 27, 2017 10:42:30 GMT
.... If Leicester can win the league title ...then it's fair and proper to assume that the City of Leicester has an automatic right to become Muslim which it has backed by its local population . ... Wonderful, just wonderful. A perfect example of the mumf oeuvre. The quoted passage is a particularly good example of the illogical rhetoric he employs, which was the highlight in a longer passage of gibberish, much of which could also be quoted to highlight his work in this period. The most-recent incarnation (2017 - ?) of the 'mumf' character employed more restraint than previous versions; He initially did not rise to previously successful attempts to bait using the term 'dog egg', nor has he mentioned 'Hilda'. This has lead to speculation in the academic community to ask 'What is mumf?' 1. Is it an art collective of post-modern anarchists, most recently seen elsewhere in recent history using the facade of working class origins to force us to ask ourselves 'What is class?' by satirising some of the more extreme attitudes to the working class held by those purporting to be superior to them? Is it a hatchet job by one of the recent more radical movements, designed to display a caricature of the sort of irrational hatred and rage associated with being an ill-educated working man in post-austerity Britain? Older accounts suggest that 'mumf' is none of the above, but these accounts lack nuance. They were underdeveloped in suggested that 'mumf' was a single actor rather than a collective, which is the current consensus. These accounts are easily dismissed when considering that older incarnations of 'mumf' were not credible, particularly in suggesting it worked around 80 hours a week in kennels while managing to post long, meandering diatribes which also suggested frequent and intense use of both alcohol and/or psychedelics. One individual alone would be unable to put themselves in such an emotionally and mentally taxing headspace irrespective of their creative brilliance, and so it is generally concluded that the posts associated with 'mumf' must come from multiple sources. Regardless of the contemporary debates surrounding its origins, it is generally accepted that periods in which the mumf collective is active coincide with enormous potential for creativity in other, often conflicting, artists. It is accepted that the sense of nihilism inherent in their output contributes greatly to both ennobling supporters of the art (including those who misunderstand it), and revitalising the creative energies of those that oppose it. 1. NB. Not 'who'Shit the bath, fella. The ball is out of the park and through some poor cunt's window! You're quite right about the big lad revitalising creative energies - this is a world above the usual drivel you inflict on us all Joking aside mate, a really top post - thanks for sharing. Some interesting points that I'm sure we can all mull over And one primary point that I'm sure we can all agree on - it's good to have mumf back. No coincidence that this place is a whole lot more fun when he's around. It comes from the heart with mumf. Not copy/pasted from some online dribbler like all too many on here
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 25, 2017 23:27:08 GMT
Josh ....I am as deluded as the 172 Labour MPs who voted No confidence in him . Or perhaps as deluded as my very own Labour MP who on the eve of the election said to me ..." You're voting for me ...not the Nutjob in London . " The very same MP who not so long ago was a Cabinet minister . I am not a Tory . I am a realist . I didn't vote for either party as a matter of fact . The Labour Party has never ever been so unelectable as it is right now ....You have MCDonnell on You tube proudly declaring his Marxist credentials ...You have Corbyn at Glastonbury preaching to the converted acne sufferers ...and Daine Abbott who is an absolute joke.... Can you imagine these three clowns sat round a table of EU economists discussing our exit .....None of them have any semblance of credibility or statesman like ability . C'mon ...Complete idiots . Mumf! Good to see you, fella. How's tricks? It's been too long. Welcome back to the fold, you old dog
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 25, 2017 16:33:36 GMT
That's sweet. Safe to say she's also more au fait with politics and economics than you Still, nice that you got to spend some quality time with her during your little "wipe the foam off yer gobhole" meltdown sin bin session. Welcome back, fella Aww didums, did the nasty man swear at her. Did she tell mummy? Lol! If you think I'd report a featherweight like you to Admin, todge, you're even more self-consumed than I thought The abuse you dish out is negligible, fella. Albeit superior to many on here, I'll give you that. But I'm afraid I've enjoyed receiving - and doling out - much, much worse Might have something to do with Admin asking us both to chill out, me doing so and you ignoring them. But then you'd have to ask them really. And I'm sure you know that anyway
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 25, 2017 10:31:59 GMT
"Aligns with" is rather different from " Corbyn's Labour is made up of dicks like this" though. Your previous statement implied he's actually in the Labour Party, which he's presumably not. It stands to reason that those on the far left would want Corbyn to remain as Labour leader - he's the first "proper" left wing candidate with a realistic chance of getting elected for over 30 years. Not extreme enough for them but even extremists understand that you can't always get what you want Just like a fair share of equally far right people will "align with" the Tories because, out of the electable options, it's the closest choice they have. It doesn't mean that either party is "made up of" people like that; they can't affect that I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? We've got a puppy like you. Always desperate for attention, sometimes a bit nippy but ultimately we have to tell her where to take a shit. That's sweet. Safe to say she's also more au fait with politics and economics than you Still, nice that you got to spend some quality time with her during your little "wipe the foam off yer gobhole" meltdown sin bin session. Welcome back, fella
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 25, 2017 6:42:31 GMT
Except for the minor fact that it doesn't mention anything in the article about him being a member of the Labour Party. In fact it notes that he stood as a parliamentary candidate for a different party. Golly, you don't half talk some shite, todge Apart from the fact that he's quoted in that article as saying; "I will also assist in the process of defending Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party, against the co-ordinated attacks of the Tories, the Blairites and the right wing in the Labour Party." During his rant on QT he said; "Jeremy Corbyn has proven that anti-austerity policies are popular, that's the question. The Tories and the Blairites lost that election"He then chants "Tax the rich... tax the rich" And you don't think this guy aligns with Corbyn's Labour Party. You're a clown. "Aligns with" is rather different from " Corbyn's Labour is made up of dicks like this" though. Your previous statement implied he's actually in the Labour Party, which he's presumably not. It stands to reason that those on the far left would want Corbyn to remain as Labour leader - he's the first "proper" left wing candidate with a realistic chance of getting elected for over 30 years. Not extreme enough for them but even extremists understand that you can't always get what you want Just like a fair share of equally far right people will "align with" the Tories because, out of the electable options, it's the closest choice they have. It doesn't mean that either party is "made up of" people like that; they can't affect that I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 24, 2017 23:23:35 GMT
Because Corbyn's Labour is made up of dicks like this one.... Except for the minor fact that it doesn't mention anything in the article about him being a member of the Labour Party. In fact it notes that he stood as a parliamentary candidate for a different party. Golly, you don't half talk some shite, todge
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 24, 2017 4:43:41 GMT
The faux outrage, the total lack of facts, the constant attempt to reach the moral high ground, the 'it's always someone else's fault' mentality, the violence when they don't get their way. The playground insults. The laughable Left. 24/7 fire wardens while they just rip the cladding off. "money no object" say's Camden Labour MP. Excellent, so not a problem with central Government funding then. I'm laughing waiting to hear how all those inner city Labour councils up and down the land will twist and turn to try and blame "The Tories" for cladding. No mention of "The Tories" in Camden yet, todge. But do keep us appraised of the politics of the Grenfell Tower tragedy - I'm sure you will Funnily enough, your idea for "24/7 fire wardens while they just rip the cladding off" seems to be exactly what the chaps in Islington are doing. This is outlined in the link you posted - which also doesn't contain any reference at all to "The Tories". So let's tally up those two most recent posts of yours on this thread. Faux outrage? Check. Total lack of facts? Check. Constant attempt to reach the moral high ground? Check. 'It's always someone else's fault' mentality? Check. Playground insults? Check. Does that make you "the laughable left"?!
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 23, 2017 23:24:35 GMT
Labour Council with a bit of "look at us, we care" dramatic politicking. Expect some more. Momentum are briefing all Labour inner city council's how to milk this. Shocking. Just out of interest, what is it about the poor that you despise so much, todger? A grim reminder of a past life? The inconvenient truth that your preferred economic system doesn't actually work in practice? Or is it just that you like to stick the boot into those less fortunate than you?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 23, 2017 23:11:58 GMT
Quite right lads, much better to let the lower classes burn to death in order to not risk embarrassing Theresa May's rock 'ard strong and stable leadership All those cunts ever do is vote Labour anyway. Scum. Waste of fucking time. Absolutely disgusting for a council to be concerned about its council tenants' wellbeing. Talk about having an agenda. Outrageous
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 23, 2017 17:33:19 GMT
Hey Friends! I love independence Days, and i celebrate my own throughout the year! I celebrate the Day I left mother, the Day i got my first flat, and the Day I divorced my wife The priest that married us was most disappointed, but she just couldn't carry on living such an immoral life under My roof I'll add this one to the Calender. ) Hey friend That immoral life yer owd boiler was leading under your roof - you didn't live in a bungalow on the Westlands with pampas grass out front, did you? No reason!
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 23, 2017 7:58:16 GMT
So you'd only use the word "Muslim" when you're listing an event where a Muslim is the aggressor, not the victim. Great impartial reporting. You should apply for a job in the MSM I think what TDC was getting at is that it mentions the muslims being attacked, it doesn't mention Christians or jews etc. being attacked. No, he says "let's list them properly", and then proceeds to employ exactly the same type of linguistic bias (albeit inverted) that he was complaining about in the same post.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 22, 2017 22:04:42 GMT
You've gotta love the BBC... Terror attacks this year A group of Muslim worshippers were hit when a van mounted the pavement and drove into them in Finsbury Park on 19 June A van hit pedestrians on London Bridge before three men got out and stabbed people in nearby Borough Market on 3 June A suicide bomber targeted young people after a concert by US singer Ariana Grande at Manchester Arena on 22 May A man in a hired car drove into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge then stabbed a police officer outside Parliament on 22 MarchThis is why people have had e-fucking-nuff of this shit. Talk about pushing a fucking agenda. Now, lets list them properly... A Muslim wages Jihad on Westminster Bridge. The Muslim kills four & injures more than 50. A Muslim wages Jihad on children in Manchester. The Muslim kills 23 & injures more than 100. Three Muslims wage Jihad in London. The Muslims kill seven & injure more than 40. A piece of shit Welshman drives his van into some people. Injuring 11. So you'd only use the word "Muslim" when you're listing an event where a Muslim is the aggressor, not the victim. Great impartial reporting. You should apply for a job in the MSM
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 18, 2017 15:42:08 GMT
I'm not aware that Corbyn mentioned specifically foreign owned property in London? He just said empty in the quotes I read. There were nearly 20,000 of them last year. I don't see what difference it would make what nationality the property owner is. Apart, of course, from the fact it allows Guido Fawkes to quote a report that focuses on a narrow section of the market, thus downplaying the total number of vacant properties)
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 18, 2017 14:27:15 GMT
Are you now suggesting that London doesn't have an issue with speculators buying property and leaving it unoccupied? A report for Sadiq Khan says this do you want the link to guido fawkes, I thought you read it yourself now This was the last thing I read on it. www.metro.co.uk/2017/05/11/map-reveals-shocking-number-of-empty-homes-across-london-6630121/amp/The highest number of empty homes is in Kensington and Chelsea, according to the study by Property Planner, and would be worth £664 million if sold on the market.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 18, 2017 13:29:12 GMT
I thought Corbyn had got rid, it just doesn't add up. With that quick a recovery surely she should be shadow health secretary think of the billions she could save the NHS, Jeremy could then use that to pay for the costs of compulsory purchase of these mythical empty rich peoples flats and the legal fees that would result if they actually existed. Are you now suggesting that London doesn't have an issue with speculators buying property and leaving it unoccupied?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 18, 2017 10:55:39 GMT
I'm not sure what point you're making here, fyd. All charities need administration from a central office, and only a tiny minority of charity workers ever put their lives at risk. Not least because most of the biggest hitters -British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research, NSPCC and so on - don't operate in war zones or disaster areas etc. Any charity workers helping Grenfell Tower disaster victims aren't likely to be risking their lives either. So that's just hyperbole "Admin" is difficult to measure. Charities typically employ fundraising staff, for example, which initially seems a frippery. But actually the fundraising function turns a vast profit for most organisations. In that way, charities would claim to reinvest donations to make them go further. Most people would rather that than giving a cut of their donation to hedge fund managers, investors, shareholders etc. (Who are probably in much more comfortable offices than charity workers, incidentally). If you feel that charities are a less efficient way of giving money than, say, JustGiving, then you're free to donate to whatever you like. But I'd caution that all the money raised on JustGiving will need administering just like it would at any charity. That will come on top of the 5% cut I've raised money for Francis House children's hospice a couple of times through just giving but it does feel as though they're leaching off people's goodwill. They've also recently announced additional charges for corporate users of their site. This will mean an additional monthly charge of £36 per month, on top of the 5% on every donation. Use virgin giving or Givey.com or one of the many other charity sites is my advice. Just Giving are trading on their name. That's a shame mate. I think what we all want is for the most efficient way of giving money as possible. And there's probably no way to measure that accurately. But good on yer for the charity work
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 18, 2017 10:30:05 GMT
The difference is that charities and not-for-profits will invest all money in "charitable causes". JustGiving is a for-profit company so that £390,000 doesn't go to charitable causes; it goes to shareholders, investors, venture capitalists etc. All money is invested after paying their admin costs which is lots more than 5%, as for not for profit I'd take a look at the salaries and perks people sitting in comfortable offices pay themselves whilst the people on the ground put their lives at risk. I'm not sure what point you're making here, fyd. All charities need administration from a central office, and only a tiny minority of charity workers ever put their lives at risk. Not least because most of the biggest hitters -British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research, NSPCC and so on - don't operate in war zones or disaster areas etc. Any charity workers helping Grenfell Tower disaster victims aren't likely to be risking their lives either. So that's just hyperbole "Admin" is difficult to measure. Charities typically employ fundraising staff, for example, which initially seems a frippery. But actually the fundraising function turns a vast profit for most organisations. In that way, charities would claim to reinvest donations to make them go further. Most people would rather that than giving a cut of their donation to hedge fund managers, investors, shareholders etc. (Who are probably in much more comfortable offices than charity workers, incidentally). If you feel that charities are a less efficient way of giving money than, say, JustGiving, then you're free to donate to whatever you like. But I'd caution that all the money raised on JustGiving will need administering just like it would at any charity. That will come on top of the 5% cut
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 18, 2017 8:41:45 GMT
Website JustGiving will pocket at least £390,000 in fees as a result of charitable donations following recent terrorist attacks and the Grenfell Tower fire. More than £7.8m has been raised via the website following the attacks in Manchester, London Bridge and Westminster, and the Grenfell Tower fire. The latter catastrophe resulted in the website breaking its one-day record for donations received. JustGiving takes 5pc of any fee donated - more than twice the fees of some rival donor sites - meaning it will take at least £390,000 in fees from these four incidents. That's shocking but not surprising. It's not right but charities do the same and you have to ask yourself if they did not exist would help come from any other source? Personally I rarely donate money to charity preferring to give stuff that I know will 100% all go to those that need it. I donate weekly to the food bank collection point at Morrisons and unwanted household stuff goes to St Luke's charity shops. You would hope that justgiving come under pressure to reduce their commission for causes such as those you have mentioned. The difference is that charities and not-for-profits will invest all money in "charitable causes". JustGiving is a for-profit company so that £390,000 doesn't go to charitable causes; it goes to shareholders, investors, venture capitalists etc.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 17, 2017 13:55:51 GMT
Im no estate agent but for a 2 bed flat I think that will be well below the average. I moved out of the studio flat Id been in for 13 years last summer when the rent went up to 1500 per month. Fwiw I don't even have a steady address at the moment, flat sitting and sofa surfing. And I've got a pretty good business. I wouldn't be surprised if lots of these flats were over occupied as to my knowledge that's how people are tending to make afford in London now. Does anyone know how much of this was still social housing? isn't there a contradiction in how some people are framing this though ? if these people are poor then they're not paying 2k (or whatever) rent themselves, which means the government have been, the same government certain people are labelling penny pinching evil cunts who hate the poor ? i'd say covering someones 2k a month rent is actually pretty generous, wouldn't you ? ... again, i'm happy to be corrected on any of this, but how is it possible to be both poor and be able to afford 2k a month rent ? Obviously there's been major fuck up somewhere, but putting it all down to austerity makes no sense, if the tories were as evil as some are making out then those people would have been thrown out of those flats years ago and housed in £400-500 a month council houses miles away. there's obviously some political opportunism playing into this from the left. On the subject of political opportunism, a polite suggestion... If you don't know how Grenfell Tower council housing works and you're still (after I've asked twice) not able/willing to provide actual evidence that Corbyn is guilty of directing mobs to storm council offices or handing out placards with abusive messages on them, maybe leave out the unfounded accusations? Alternatively, smear Jeremy Corbyn to your heart's content; just maybe leave out the accusations of political opportunism? Along with various others, you're guilty of precisely that when you make up smears about people, so it looks a bit silly to then criticise others for it
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 17, 2017 9:56:23 GMT
You're the third person I've asked on this thread, so far without response. I'll hope it's third time lucky: do you have any evidence to support those allegations? A local labour ward councillor was on the BBC news earlier, and said there were people who stormed the civic buildings were locals, ably supported by outsiders. This has forced the offices to shut when they were in the middle of organising plans for rehousing children and families, lynch mob attitudes never work. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to provide evidence that the provocateurs, the 'outsiders', are being controlled by Jeremy Corbyn. All I'm seeing is a whole lot of people who have personal dislikes of Jeremy Corbyn complaining about the politicising of the issue whilst doing nothing but smearing Jeremy Corbyn. Thus politicising the issue themselves and increasing division. As far as I can see, some people are just very sore that the political tide appears to be turning. Just as it has before, and just as it will again. Some people are more preoccupied with moaning about "the left" than empathising with victims and people living in similar accommodation. Which, like it or not, is a lot of people in London. Mostly worried and angry, many willing to take to the streets. No one really needs to be a provocateur; people are already provoked. Not saying you're guilty of all the above BTW - just a general thread observation.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 17, 2017 9:37:26 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn turns up the next day, interacts with people, locals are generally welcoming. Theresa May eventually bows to pressure to meet those affected, in a closed, private meeting and gets abuse as she legs it to her car afterwards. Those are the facts. The usual Tory apologists on here doing their best to spin it. Sometimes you should just admit you backed the wrong horse. I wonder why she won't go and meet people on the street who are being told (by provocateurs) that she is personally responsible for the murder of their friends and family ? absolutely baffling. Have you got any evidence to support your claims yet?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 17, 2017 9:35:39 GMT
You're the third person I've asked on this thread, so far without response. I'll hope it's third time lucky: do you have any evidence to support those allegations? Ask Ben Bradshaw and Tom Watson No evidence then. Thought not.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 17, 2017 8:08:36 GMT
like i said in six months or before labour would get in What's different today than a few days ago? Hold an election and find out.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 17, 2017 7:55:21 GMT
Corbyn and his lefty henchmen have a hidden agenda to overthrow the legitimate government with mob rule and whipping up anti government hysteria. He is using the aftermath of this terrible tragedy to make political gain there is no doubt imo. He and his party are despicable. The people of Grenfell Tower have legitimate reason to be angry with authorities however labour are exploiting this imo. You're the third person I've asked on this thread, so far without response. I'll hope it's third time lucky: do you have any evidence to support those allegations?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 17, 2017 6:40:06 GMT
he leaves that to momentum You're not suggesting that Corbyn and Khan are loading some pretty hefty bullets are you? That appears to be what he's suggesting yes. But then he's been asked about it three times now and is still yet to provide any evidence to support the accusation. It looks increasingly as if we can file it in the same drawer as his numerous General Election predictions
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jun 16, 2017 21:29:58 GMT
No it says a lot more about you than me, fyd. You're more interested in defending your political party than anything else. Even the right wing media outlets aren't casting the aspersions or spreading the innuendo you are. There's no innuendo when I've stated my view explicitly, so OYF with your snide comments. For 'snide', read 'true'.
|
|