Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

LionsV2 wrote:

Galted wrote:

As much as I agree with you that much of the reason for the Leave vote was the racism and pig-ignorance of the likes of Lionsv2 and old people, I'm not sure the questions you're asking are particularly relevant.  I'd quite like a cut in local crime but couldn't name a single local criminal.

I beg your pardon?

No doubt the mods will do nothing about that.

He said you were “PIG IGNORANT”. I’ve heard of hard of hearing before but not hard of reading.

Hating?

superflyweight wrote:Nuttier elements - see Alex Salmond, Pete Wishart, Angus MacNeil for an example of what I mean.

Hardcore nationalists? Anymore hardcore than the unionists who swear blind Scotland is too wee, too weak, too poor to be independent yet want it kept part of the union?

No more hardcore but the arguments of unionists were not ancillary to the point I was making.

Flag wavers? Like those at Last Night of the Proms that people drool over do you mean?

I'm not sure Last Night of the Proms should ever be used as an indicator of political sentiment. It's equivalent to attributing political motive to everyone who waves a flag or a scarf at a football match. In any event, there were a large proportion of people waving EU flags at this year's event. I was thinking more of idiots like this:

Okay lets see then.

How nutty are elements of the Tory party? Far more nuttier than the nuttiest of SNP I would say. You have a PM who insists on pretending to dance so bad that it makes Ann Widdecombe look like Ginger Rodgers. A PM nutty enough to oversee Project Windrush and lie to a nation calling her government laughingly 'strong and stable'. Now THAT is nutty. And that is before we even get started on Coco the Clown (BoJo).

As for your thing about hardcore nationalists. Do you have a problem with people who strongly believe in independence for their country? Is it really so far removed from those that have fought for independence in many countries in all four corners of the world. Is it their passion for independence and their country that you do not like? The same sort of stuff that we see from many who vehemently believe the UK are better outside the EU? As I see it show me a Scottish Nationalist and there are just as many Brit Nats around. However, Scotland are opening their arms to foreigners whereas the basic ethic of voting for Brexit was one to stop Johnny Foreigner getting into the country.

Flag waving? Jeez I am sure many on here have done it before. The last time I looked it was not a crime as long as the flag is not offensive.

Hate perhaps a strong word I give you that. Apologies.

The SNP don't believe in 'independence for their country', though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Nuttier elements - see Alex Salmond, Pete Wishart, Angus MacNeil for an example of what I mean.

Hardcore nationalists? Anymore hardcore than the unionists who swear blind Scotland is too wee, too weak, too poor to be independent yet want it kept part of the union?

No more hardcore but the arguments of unionists were not ancillary to the point I was making.

Flag wavers? Like those at Last Night of the Proms that people drool over do you mean?

I'm not sure Last Night of the Proms should ever be used as an indicator of political sentiment. It's equivalent to attributing political motive to everyone who waves a flag or a scarf at a football match. In any event, there were a large proportion of people waving EU flags at this year's event. I was thinking more of idiots like this:

Okay lets see then.

How nutty are elements of the Tory party? Far more nuttier than the nuttiest of SNP I would say. You have a PM who insists on pretending to dance so bad that it makes Ann Widdecombe look like Ginger Rodgers. A PM nutty enough to oversee Project Windrush and lie to a nation calling her government laughingly 'strong and stable'. Now THAT is nutty. And that is before we even get started on Coco the Clown (BoJo).

As for your thing about hardcore nationalists. Do you have a problem with people who strongly believe in independence for their country? Is it really so far removed from those that have fought for independence in many countries in all four corners of the world. Is it their passion for independence and their country that you do not like? The same sort of stuff that we see from many who vehemently believe the UK are better outside the EU? As I see it show me a Scottish Nationalist and there are just as many Brit Nats around. However, Scotland are opening their arms to foreigners whereas the basic ethic of voting for Brexit was one to stop Johnny Foreigner getting into the country.

Flag waving? Jeez I am sure many on here have done it before. The last time I looked it was not a crime as long as the flag is not offensive.

Hate perhaps a strong word I give you that. Apologies.

I don't disagree with your views on the Tories - but my original post was about the SNP and the fact that Sturgeon is clearly very measured and sensible and is having to fight hard to keep in check some of the idiots in her party that would otherwise derail the progress she is making to normalise the SNP as a party of power rather than a party of protest - clowns like Wishart (runaway winner of Scotland's stupidest person for the last decade), MacNeil and Salmond do her no favours when they shoot their mouth off about the need for an immediate referendum. Just because I point out their nuttiness doesn't mean I somehow overlook every nutter out there - posting would become an impossibly long process if I had to call out every moron from every other political party each and every time I have a go at someone from one particular party.

As for the rest of your post, I'm generally uneasy about any type of nationalism and struggle to relate to the tribalism of nationalist politics and the flag-waving that tends to accompany it.

Duty281 wrote:The SNP don't believe in 'independence for their country', though.

Uhhh...

superflyweight wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Nuttier elements - see Alex Salmond, Pete Wishart, Angus MacNeil for an example of what I mean.

Hardcore nationalists? Anymore hardcore than the unionists who swear blind Scotland is too wee, too weak, too poor to be independent yet want it kept part of the union?

No more hardcore but the arguments of unionists were not ancillary to the point I was making.

Flag wavers? Like those at Last Night of the Proms that people drool over do you mean?

I'm not sure Last Night of the Proms should ever be used as an indicator of political sentiment. It's equivalent to attributing political motive to everyone who waves a flag or a scarf at a football match. In any event, there were a large proportion of people waving EU flags at this year's event. I was thinking more of idiots like this:

Okay lets see then.

How nutty are elements of the Tory party? Far more nuttier than the nuttiest of SNP I would say. You have a PM who insists on pretending to dance so bad that it makes Ann Widdecombe look like Ginger Rodgers. A PM nutty enough to oversee Project Windrush and lie to a nation calling her government laughingly 'strong and stable'. Now THAT is nutty. And that is before we even get started on Coco the Clown (BoJo).

As for your thing about hardcore nationalists. Do you have a problem with people who strongly believe in independence for their country? Is it really so far removed from those that have fought for independence in many countries in all four corners of the world. Is it their passion for independence and their country that you do not like? The same sort of stuff that we see from many who vehemently believe the UK are better outside the EU? As I see it show me a Scottish Nationalist and there are just as many Brit Nats around. However, Scotland are opening their arms to foreigners whereas the basic ethic of voting for Brexit was one to stop Johnny Foreigner getting into the country.

Flag waving? Jeez I am sure many on here have done it before. The last time I looked it was not a crime as long as the flag is not offensive.

Hate perhaps a strong word I give you that. Apologies.

I don't disagree with your views on the Tories - but my original post was about the SNP and the fact that Sturgeon is clearly very measured and sensible and is having to fight hard to keep in check some of the idiots in her party that would otherwise derail the progress she is making to normalise the SNP as a party of power rather than a party of protest - clowns like Wishart (runaway winner of Scotland's stupidest person for the last decade), MacNeil and Salmond do her no favours when they shoot their mouth off about the need for an immediate referendum.  Just because I point out their nuttiness doesn't mean I somehow overlook every nutter out there - posting would become an impossibly long process if I had to call out every moron from every other political party each and every time I have a go at someone from one particular party.

As for the rest of your post, I'm generally uneasy about any type of nationalism and struggle to relate to the tribalism of nationalist politics and the flag-waving that tends to accompany it.    

 

Sturgeon, at present, is standing by what she said a few months ago. She is waiting for far more convincing polls on independence. I think she said when Yes reaches 60% consistently in polls is when she will fire the gun. Also she did say she would wait to see what the final outcome on Brexit would bring.

Those eager for one now I would say are ones who feel a Yes vote would be returned now and an attempt to remain in the EU could be made. That is the riskier option but does not equate them to being nutty.

I hate to break it to you about nationalistic politics but it is everywhere. As I said I do not see what is wrong about Scots people and politicians wanting independence. In no way shape or form should it be seen as a crime (not saying you are by the way) or frowned upon.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The SNP don't believe in 'independence for their country', though.

Uhhh...

Exactly Samo.

I think Duty is one of those that thinks being in the EU is not independent. Well that is horse manure. The UK was in it and wasvit forced to take the Euro? No. It went to an illegal war with Iraq and was not prevented by the EU. It voted to leave the EU as well. All seems like choices made by a country free to come and go as it pleases to me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sturgeon, at present, is standing by what she said a few months ago. She is waiting for far more convincing polls on independence. I think she said when Yes reaches 60% consistently in polls is when she will fire the gun. Also she did say she would wait to see what the final outcome on Brexit would bring.

Those eager for one now I would say are ones who feel a Yes vote would be returned now and an attempt to remain in the EU could be made. That is the riskier option but does not equate them to being nutty.

I hate to break it to you about nationalistic politics but it is everywhere. As I said I do not see what is wrong about Scots people and politicians wanting independence. In no way shape or form should it be seen as a crime (not saying you are by the way) or frowned upon.

She's a liar, like the rest. No repeat Indyref for a 'generation' wasn't it? Must be talking about the generation time of a typical hamster then. Maybe it'll take decades for polls to reach the magic 60%, and that assumes she's granted her wish. And, no, I don't take the Brexit outcome as a reasonable excuse to agitate for another one.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sturgeon, at present, is standing by what she said a few months ago. She is waiting for far more convincing polls on independence. I think she said when Yes reaches 60% consistently in polls is when she will fire the gun. Also she did say she would wait to see what the final outcome on Brexit would bring.

Those eager for one now I would say are ones who feel a Yes vote would be returned now and an attempt to remain in the EU could be made. That is the riskier option but does not equate them to being nutty.

I hate to break it to you about nationalistic politics but it is everywhere. As I said I do not see what is wrong about Scots people and politicians wanting independence. In no way shape or form should it be seen as a crime (not saying you are by the way) or frowned upon.

She's a liar, like the rest. No repeat Indyref for a 'generation' wasn't it? Must be talking about the generation time of a typical hamster then. Maybe it'll take decades for polls to reach the magic 60%, and that assumes she's granted her wish. And, no, I don't take the Brexit outcome as a reasonable excuse to agitate for another one.

Eh no.

If you wish to look into the full signed agreement of the last indyref it said nothing about it having to be a once in a generation event. It stems from Salmond looking to bolster support by telling Scots it was a 'once in a lifetime' chance for independence - a term used to ensure as many people as possible voted. That was all - nothing binding, nothing written into contracts or agreements.

Does yes need the magic 60%? Hmm maybe not. When the last indyref was announced support for Yes in polls stood at between 25 and 29%. When it was done and dusted Yes ended up with just short of 45%. If a referendum was called now then Yes starts from a much stronger start point with polls having Yes at around 42%. And yes of course Brexit is a big reason for another referendum. EU membership was used as a tool to buy No votes last time around and it worked but now those were empty words. Scots who voted in favour of staying in Europe are being dragged out against their will. In any case if you cannot see how far apart Scotland has drifted politically from the rest of the UK then you have to be blind. In the UK the Tories have made up the government for about 25 to 30 of the last 40 years. The Tories have not been the biggest party in Scotland for over five decades now. England and Wale want out of the Eu whilst Scotland doesn't and then we have all the other differences such as Tories believe in privatising the NHS whereas the SNP don't.

The union is like a marriage and once you have irreconcilable differences it is time to split.

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

Its not like the SNP were re-elected to Holyrood in 2016 based on a manifesto that stated they would seek another referendum if “it was shown that the majority of Scots supported it” or “there was a significant and material change in circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will”.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She said it. She's a liar. Like all the rest. Remove the scales from your eyes.

Politics is the art thereof.

SecretFly wrote:Politics is the art thereof.

So it would appear. Which is why it's dying on its arse.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Politics is the art thereof.

So it would appear. Which is why it's dying on its arse.

I wouldn't say that.  I hope the hell not!  For what replaces it if it goes ahead and dies?

No, I rather see it as the world finally waking up to a lot of unvarnished truths after pretty much 80 years (well, if you take a marker of the 2nd WW) of propaganda that claimed people were being well led by the systems they choose to lead them.  
And that propaganda was mostly led not by Governments but by the supposedly free and unbiased media.  So for decades and decades, people generally believed in the old guff being fed to them.  
The 'West' was mostly Good.  The Third World was always poor simply because people were either lazy or they had 'bad' governments (or the 'good' West didn't feed them enough as Prince Bob often claimed).  The 'West' had only good intentions when keeping the Middle East firestorm going decade after decade, war after war, big arms deals after big arms deals.
Now though, the Internet of things has grown out of the Entertainment vehicle it once was.  The new generations are sick of the Entertainment - they're bored now.  Chatting and selfies have exhausted themselves.  Now the people are using the Net to inform each other, to expose the lies (from all sides), to motivate each other politically.  There are very few hiding places for lies and deception.  People can and still do Choose to believe the lies that suit their politics the best - but at least they now know few can claim the moral high ground on 'truth'.

The Net has suddenly become a very dangerous tool for the settled elites of newsdom and sculpted official lies.  Politics has actually finally come to the people.  It's probably the most politically alive period in the world since the 60s.  And lo and behold, just when the Net becomes such a powerful tool in unearthing the age old hypocrisies and bare faced lies about cause and motivation............... the growing urge now is to CENSOR it.....

How very interesting.

SecretFly wrote:People can and still do Choose to believe the lies that suit their politics the best

For example - "The Third World was always poor simply because people were either lazy or they had 'bad' governments"

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Politics is the art thereof.

So it would appear. Which is why it's dying on its arse.

I wouldn't say that.  I hope the hell not!  For what replaces it if it goes ahead and dies?

No, I rather see it as the world finally waking up to a lot of unvarnished truths after pretty much 80 years (well, if you take a marker of the 2nd WW) of propaganda that claimed people were being well led by the systems they choose to lead them.  
And that propaganda was mostly led not by Governments but by the supposedly free and unbiased media.  So for decades and decades, people generally believed in the old guff being fed to them.  
The 'West' was mostly Good.  The Third World was always poor simply because people were either lazy or they had 'bad' governments (or the 'good' West didn't feed them enough as Prince Bob often claimed).  The 'West' had only good intentions when keeping the Middle East firestorm going decade after decade, war after war, big arms deals after big arms deals.
Now though, the Internet of things has grown out of the Entertainment vehicle it once was.  The new generations are sick of the Entertainment - they're bored now.  Chatting and selfies have exhausted themselves.  Now the people are using the Net to inform each other, to expose the lies (from all sides), to motivate each other politically.  There are very few hiding places for lies and deception.  People can and still do Choose to believe the lies that suit their politics the best - but at least they now know few can claim the moral high ground on 'truth'.

The Net has suddenly become a very dangerous tool for the settled elites of newsdom and sculpted official lies.  Politics has actually finally come to the people.  It's probably the most politically alive period in the world since the 60s.  And lo and behold, just when the Net becomes such a powerful tool in unearthing the age old hypocrisies and bare faced lies about cause and motivation............... the growing urge now is to CENSOR it.....

How very interesting.

Maybe. People just believe other lies (or what they hear in their own echo chambers), instead of those peddled by politicians. If you seriously think the majority acquire a well-balanced perspective on issues from online sources, you're mistaken. Those sources are as open to peddling unsubstantiated nonsense as anywhere else.

Essentially, one has to trust sources purporting to be purveyors of information and that trust has gone, or is being seriously damaged at an increasing rate. Trump etc have accelerated that too with all this 'fake news' baloney.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Politics is the art thereof.

So it would appear. Which is why it's dying on its arse.

I wouldn't say that.  I hope the hell not!  For what replaces it if it goes ahead and dies?

No, I rather see it as the world finally waking up to a lot of unvarnished truths after pretty much 80 years (well, if you take a marker of the 2nd WW) of propaganda that claimed people were being well led by the systems they choose to lead them.  
And that propaganda was mostly led not by Governments but by the supposedly free and unbiased media.  So for decades and decades, people generally believed in the old guff being fed to them.  
The 'West' was mostly Good.  The Third World was always poor simply because people were either lazy or they had 'bad' governments (or the 'good' West didn't feed them enough as Prince Bob often claimed).  The 'West' had only good intentions when keeping the Middle East firestorm going decade after decade, war after war, big arms deals after big arms deals.
Now though, the Internet of things has grown out of the Entertainment vehicle it once was.  The new generations are sick of the Entertainment - they're bored now.  Chatting and selfies have exhausted themselves.  Now the people are using the Net to inform each other, to expose the lies (from all sides), to motivate each other politically.  There are very few hiding places for lies and deception.  People can and still do Choose to believe the lies that suit their politics the best - but at least they now know few can claim the moral high ground on 'truth'.

The Net has suddenly become a very dangerous tool for the settled elites of newsdom and sculpted official lies.  Politics has actually finally come to the people.  It's probably the most politically alive period in the world since the 60s.  And lo and behold, just when the Net becomes such a powerful tool in unearthing the age old hypocrisies and bare faced lies about cause and motivation............... the growing urge now is to CENSOR it.....

How very interesting.

Agree that the Net is a concern for the establishment and has been for a while.
Not sure though how this political motivation among the new generations you mention is manifesting itself. The younger folk I speak to tend to not give a monkeys, are cheesed off and don't believe voting will change anything for the better. My influence there most probs. Oops.
As for the Middle East - rarely gets a mention these days considering it's been destabilized which was the plan wasn't it? Job one, mission accomplished. Watched a documentary on AL J a few months ago.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Politics is the art thereof.

So it would appear. Which is why it's dying on its arse.

I wouldn't say that.  I hope the hell not!  For what replaces it if it goes ahead and dies?

No, I rather see it as the world finally waking up to a lot of unvarnished truths after pretty much 80 years (well, if you take a marker of the 2nd WW) of propaganda that claimed people were being well led by the systems they choose to lead them.  
And that propaganda was mostly led not by Governments but by the supposedly free and unbiased media.  So for decades and decades, people generally believed in the old guff being fed to them.  
The 'West' was mostly Good.  The Third World was always poor simply because people were either lazy or they had 'bad' governments (or the 'good' West didn't feed them enough as Prince Bob often claimed).  The 'West' had only good intentions when keeping the Middle East firestorm going decade after decade, war after war, big arms deals after big arms deals.
Now though, the Internet of things has grown out of the Entertainment vehicle it once was.  The new generations are sick of the Entertainment - they're bored now.  Chatting and selfies have exhausted themselves.  Now the people are using the Net to inform each other, to expose the lies (from all sides), to motivate each other politically.  There are very few hiding places for lies and deception.  People can and still do Choose to believe the lies that suit their politics the best - but at least they now know few can claim the moral high ground on 'truth'.

The Net has suddenly become a very dangerous tool for the settled elites of newsdom and sculpted official lies.  Politics has actually finally come to the people.  It's probably the most politically alive period in the world since the 60s.  And lo and behold, just when the Net becomes such a powerful tool in unearthing the age old hypocrisies and bare faced lies about cause and motivation............... the growing urge now is to CENSOR it.....

How very interesting.

Agree that the Net is a concern for the establishment and has been for a while.
Not sure though how this political motivation among the new generations you mention is manifesting itself. The younger folk I speak to tend to not give a monkeys, are cheesed off and don't believe voting will change anything for the better. My influence there most probs. Oops.
As for the Middle East - rarely gets a mention these days considering it's been destabilized which was the plan wasn't it? Job one, mission accomplished. Watched a documentary on AL J a few months ago.

Why I don't think the polls should worry Labour too much......The Tories are a couple of points ahead but in the heat and excitement of a fevered Election...Chances are like last time and with Bernie Sanders in 2016 the Youngsters will start to become interested..

Labour are behind because the youth vote has eased a little if you look at the minutae....

Think that is a problem that can be fixed if and when the time comes.......However I think the next Election will be 2022 and will involve...

Raab or Javed vs Thornberry or Rayner.........I think Labour will win it..

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

No-one, NO-ONE, mentioned legal anything. The point was that Sturgeon said it was once in a lifetime and has rowed back (i.e. lied) about that. Legal contract?? I've rarely heard such nonsense. They day that political manifestos are actually legally binding documents might be a step forward, but I don't see any politician advocating it.

Sturgeon's pants are on fire, no matter what you'd like to believe. Just the same as all the rest. Sorry to burst your bubble and all that.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

No-one, NO-ONE, mentioned legal anything. The point was that Sturgeon said it was once in a lifetime and has rowed back (i.e. lied) about that. Legal contract?? I've rarely heard such nonsense. They day that political manifestos are actually legally binding documents might be a step forward, but I don't see any politician advocating it.

Sturgeon's pants are on fire, no matter what you'd like to believe. Just the same as all the rest. Sorry to burst your bubble and all that.

Burst my bubble? Nah not a chance of that.

Sturgeon is pushing for what her party supports - independence. And she is pushing for what the 63% of Scots voted for - staying in the EU. Is that wrong? Of course not. The problem is that Scotland is currently under the rule of the masters of lying - Westminster. And it has been for 300+ years. End of the day is it any real surprise? No. Look back over the last century to witness the demise of the British Empire and ask yourself why all those countries have broken away to self-governance. The same is happening now in the diminished 'empire' the UK. Scotland has around 1.5 million supporting independence and it would seem the Welsh are rebelling too. Why?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

Seem brainwashed by SNP propaganda...

Always a good idea to step back and try to see the bigger picture..

Life isn't black and white..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

Seem brainwashed by SNP propaganda...

Always a good idea to step back and try to see the bigger picture..

Life isn't black and white..

Ah right so Better Together did not lie?

Sold a No vote on the premise of it was the only way Scotland could remain in the EU. Now look what is happening.

They said Scotland could not keep the pound as currency. Since then Mervyn King Head of the Bank of England rubbished that saying it would be perfectly feasible for an independent Scotland to keep the pound.

They said Scotland would lose the Royal Family and took the Queen to step in and refute that.

They insisted oil was almost drained dry in the North Sea and yet a new oil field off the coast of the Shetlands had been discovered that contains billions in oil. And so drained dry that Westminster pushed through the change of boundary lines to bring the current fields into English from Scottish waters.

Yes ok Bitter Together did not lie. Me thinks too many on here are duped by unionist biased media outlets such as the BBC and Wapping press bodies.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

No-one, NO-ONE, mentioned legal anything. The point was that Sturgeon said it was once in a lifetime and has rowed back (i.e. lied) about that. Legal contract?? I've rarely heard such nonsense. They day that political manifestos are actually legally binding documents might be a step forward, but I don't see any politician advocating it.

Sturgeon's pants are on fire, no matter what you'd like to believe. Just the same as all the rest. Sorry to burst your bubble and all that.

Burst my bubble? Nah not a chance of that.

Sturgeon is pushing for what her party supports - independence. And she is pushing for what the 63% of Scots voted for - staying in the EU. Is that wrong? Of course not. The problem is that Scotland is currently under the rule of the masters of lying - Westminster. And it has been for 300+ years. End of the day is it any real surprise? No. Look back over the last century to witness the demise of the British Empire and ask yourself why all those countries have broken away to self-governance. The same is happening now in the diminished 'empire' the UK. Scotland has around 1.5 million supporting independence and it would seem the Welsh are rebelling too. Why?

Fair play in sticking to your beliefs . Why are they 'rebelling'? Perhaps because they don't have a clue? Perhaps because there are too many plausible rabble rousers?
Personally, I think the idea, in this day and age, of National fragmentation is barking and backwards. It's a coward's way out instead of negotiating a path as a united entity. "I'm taking my ball home and I'm not playing with you any more!". Fundamentally, populations should be getting closer, but it seems to be the vogue to behave like spoilt children and 'take back control'.
If it wasn't for the fact I think it's philosophically backward, I'd say naff off to Scotland quite happily.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

Seem brainwashed by SNP propaganda...

Always a good idea to step back and try to see the bigger picture..

Life isn't black and white..

Ah right so Better Together did not lie?

Sold a No vote on the premise of it was the only way Scotland could remain in the EU. Now look what is happening.

They said Scotland could not keep the pound as currency. Since then Mervyn King Head of the Bank of England rubbished that saying it would be perfectly feasible for an independent Scotland to keep the pound.

They said Scotland would lose the Royal Family and took the Queen to step in and refute that.

They insisted oil was almost drained dry in the North Sea and yet a new oil field off the coast of the Shetlands had been discovered that contains billions in oil. And so drained dry that Westminster pushed through the change of boundary lines to bring the current fields into English from Scottish waters.

Yes ok Bitter Together did not lie. Me thinks too many on here are duped by unionist biased media outlets such as the BBC and Wapping press bodies.

Talk about whataboutery. This started with a suggestion that Sturgeon lied. She did. End of. Trying to justify it because others might have done so is a nonsense. You are quoting opinions as well, not facts. Sturgeon lied - it's a fact. Just admit it, you'll feel better in the long run.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Spoiler:

Vote and vote again until you get the answer you want eh? Sorry. No. Get to whatever version of 'Relate' passes for those nations that're having issues.

Nice try but I will take that as you admitting you could not find any legal binding statement tied into the last indyref document that stated it was a once in a lifetime event.

I have said it before and will say it again. The genie escaped the bottle on Scottish independence when numbers ranging into seven figures support independence and that number isn't going to be falling either. When you have such a volume of people supporting a cause it cannot be brushed aside or silenced.

She publicly stated that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation vote. Now it appears she's going back on that. That means she lied. You don't need a legally-binding statement, whatever that is supposed to be.

Mind you, circumstances surrounding Scotland are extremely different now when compared to 2014. If I was Scottish, I'd be all for independence now and I would have been a staunch "No" voter in 2014. The English have gone absolutely mental with Brexit and they're trampling all over Scotland.

You do need a legally binding contract though if, as some are trying to do (not you) use it as a reason as to not have another referendum.

And if we wish to talk lies and BS the unionists in Better Together campaign are the pure champions. Anyway at the end of the day another referendum will happen it is just a matter of when not if.

No-one, NO-ONE, mentioned legal anything. The point was that Sturgeon said it was once in a lifetime and has rowed back (i.e. lied) about that. Legal contract?? I've rarely heard such nonsense. They day that political manifestos are actually legally binding documents might be a step forward, but I don't see any politician advocating it.

Sturgeon's pants are on fire, no matter what you'd like to believe. Just the same as all the rest. Sorry to burst your bubble and all that.

Burst my bubble? Nah not a chance of that.

Sturgeon is pushing for what her party supports - independence. And she is pushing for what the 63% of Scots voted for - staying in the EU. Is that wrong? Of course not. The problem is that Scotland is currently under the rule of the masters of lying - Westminster. And it has been for 300+ years. End of the day is it any real surprise? No. Look back over the last century to witness the demise of the British Empire and ask yourself why all those countries have broken away to self-governance. The same is happening now in the diminished 'empire' the UK. Scotland has around 1.5 million supporting independence and it would seem the Welsh are rebelling too. Why?

Fair play in sticking to your beliefs . Why are they 'rebelling'? Perhaps because they don't have a clue? Perhaps because there are too many plausible rabble rousers?
Personally, I think the idea, in this day and age, of National fragmentation is barking and backwards. It's a coward's way out instead of negotiating a path as a united entity. "I'm taking my ball home and I'm not playing with you any more!". Fundamentally, populations should be getting closer, but it seems to be the vogue to behave like spoilt children and 'take back control'.
If it wasn't for the fact I think it's philosophically backward, I'd say naff off to Scotland quite happily.

I take it then that you would opt to stay in the EU? And can we call the UK themselves 'rabble rousers' for wanting out of the EU?

Like I have said before a union is fine if it is fair and it works. It isn't and doesn't now. Also when two parts of that union drift so far apart on political views and beliefs it is also a lost cause. Like I said the other day the Tories have formed governments for around thirty of the last forty years yet the Tories have not been the majority part in Scotland for 50+ years. That speaks volumes. And because the way this union works (or doesn't) Scotland has to put up with a party it never voted for. Scotland wants to stay in the EU but hey ho it is leaving whether it likes it or not. Some union.

navyblueshorts wrote:Fundamentally, populations should be getting closer, but it seems to be the vogue to behave like spoilt children and 'take back control'.
If it wasn't for the fact I think it's philosophically backward, I'd say naff off to Scotland quite happily.

Evolution came before philosophy.  One (philosophy) we can agree to read, study and formulate, and the other (evolution) just happens, whether you're intelligent/educated or not.  

Populations are not meant to be getting closer.  They're meant to be eternally suspicious of each others motives.  We're meant to be tribal.  

Evolution doesn't like conformity as it kinda kills off the needed dynamic of 'survival of the fittest'.  Our genes don't want us all to be friends and it's a naïve philosophical perspective to assume the modern intellect can stage manage a bluff on them.  They won't be bluffed - a lovely harmonious World Oneness Government of Perfect Bliss will never happen. So by all means, let your inner primeval compulsions out and gladly cry: Naff Off Scotland!

SNP will be finished as a force in 10 years time....me reckons..

Two big problems..

1. They are in government and eventually people will tire of them blaming the British Govt for everything.

2. If they ever get Independence...Scotland can't self sustain so the Country will be on its arse and they will get the blame for that..

I can see the rush for a new Indepence ref because their dominance in Scotland is not to be taken for granted and the other two Parties don't want Independence..

But the SNP are screwed either way over time..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:SNP will be finished as a force in 10 years time....me reckons..

Two big problems..

1. They are in government and eventually people will tire of them blaming the British Govt for everything.

2. If they ever get Independence...Scotland can't self sustain so the Country will be on its arse and they will get the blame for that..

I can see the rush for a new Indepence ref because their dominance in Scotland is not to be taken for granted and the other two Parties don't want Independence..

But the SNP are screwed either way over time..

Quite possible but wait and see.

If/when Scotland gain independence a lot will depend on how the unionist parties embrace independence and can re-invent their thinking and thought process. Scottish Labour and Scottish Conservatives are like two bullied children told how to act,vote and think by Westminster's big brother parties. How will they react with the umbilical cord cut? How will they re-organise and build support in an independent Scotland. The party that can do that the best and embrace independence the most will fair best. At present the SNP are already in preparation for independence whereas Scottish Tories and Labour have their heads firmly stuck up Westminster Tory and Labour's backside they have not even thought about it.

Craig - couple of quick questions re Scotland's retention of the pound.  

(1)  Do you genuinely believe that Scotland would be allowed to join the EU and not have the Euro as our currency?  Would you be 100% confident that we would be able to keep the pound?  

(2) Even if we were able to keep the pound, why would we want to do that?  We'd have no representation on the Bank of England's fiscal and monetary policy unit and the value of our currency would be determined by another country operating on a different economic model and with different economic priorities which conflict with our own (at a very basic level - Scotland would be a net exporter of oil whereas RUK would be a net importer).  

I'd like to think that when the next referendum comes round that the SNP / independence movement will be able to demonstrate workable solutions for these issues which are an improvement on Salmond (a) lying about non-existent Legal advice about the terms of Scotland's future membership of the EU, and (b) Salamond repeatedly shouting "its our pound too".

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Fundamentally, populations should be getting closer, but it seems to be the vogue to behave like spoilt children and 'take back control'.
If it wasn't for the fact I think it's philosophically backward, I'd say naff off to Scotland quite happily.

Evolution came before philosophy.  One (philosophy) we can agree to read, study and formulate, and the other (evolution) just happens, whether you're intelligent/educated or not.  

Populations are not meant to be getting closer.  They're meant to be eternally suspicious of each others motives.  We're meant to be tribal.  

Evolution doesn't like conformity as it kinda kills off the needed dynamic of 'survival of the fittest'.  Our genes don't want us all to be friends and it's a naïve philosophical perspective to assume the modern intellect can stage manage a bluff on them.  They won't be bluffed - a lovely harmonious World Oneness Government of Perfect Bliss will never happen.  So by all means, let your inner primeval compulsions out and gladly cry: Naff Off Scotland!

Partly correct. We'll evolve whatever. Someone will still select a partner based on looks, sporting brilliance, wealth, intellect, whatever. We aren't loners as a species either. You're wrong about the Union of Oneness as well - it'll happen eventually, but there may be some ructions along the way.

Peter Hain has used parliamentary privilege to circumvent the injunction and name Philip Green as the person at the centre of the bullying and sexual abuse claims.

I for one am shocked! Absolutely shocked!

superflyweight wrote:Peter Hain has used parliamentary privilege to circumvent the injunction and name Philip Green as the person at the centre of the bullying and sexual abuse claims.  

I for one am shocked!  Absolutely shocked!

Me too, actually. Seems these accusations always hit the good ones, eh?

While I can't think of too many businessmen more deserving of a comeuppance, Hain has acted despicably here. The legal process hadn't even run its course and Hain thinks he knows best? Ar5ehole.

superflyweight wrote:
As for the rest of your post, I'm generally uneasy about any type of nationalism and struggle to relate to the tribalism of nationalist politics and the flag-waving that tends to accompany it.    

 

At the moment if the SNP (or other indy supporters) could carve out an argument for an independent Scotland that was totally removed from nationalism I would be more than prepared to listen.  How you would make an argument for a country becoming independent without invoking some form of nationalism I don't know, but I know I oppose nationalism on any scale so it is for the SNP to come up with the solution.  I would imagine the type of independence I would vote for would not gain much support from your typical indy supporter.  Think setting up Scotland to be ahead of the queue for countries forming a proper federal Europe.

navyblueshorts wrote:While I can't think of too many businessmen more deserving of a comeuppance, Hain has acted despicably here. The legal process hadn't even run its course and Hain thinks he knows best? Ar5ehole.

Let me get this right, it is Hain you hope gets his comeuppance and not Green?

McLaren wrote:

superflyweight wrote:
As for the rest of your post, I'm generally uneasy about any type of nationalism and struggle to relate to the tribalism of nationalist politics and the flag-waving that tends to accompany it.    

 

At the moment if the SNP (or other indy supporters) could carve out an argument for an independent Scotland that was totally removed from nationalism I would be more than prepared to listen.  How you would make an argument for a country becoming independent without invoking some form of nationalism I don't know, but I know I oppose nationalism on any scale so it is for the SNP to come up with the solution.  I would imagine the type of independence I would vote for would not gain much support from your typical indy supporter.  Think setting up Scotland to be ahead of the queue for countries forming a proper federal Europe.

I'd agree with all of that. If I ever vote for independence it will probably be in spite of the Yes movement, not because of it.

There was a lot of triumphalism at the weekend when Billy Connolly said that Brexit could potentially make him a Yes voter and a lot of the stuff I saw from the SNP and the independence movement was that he'd finally seen the light and had clearly just been mistaken in his opinions until now. It's like they can't see the obvious concerns that some people might have.

McLaren wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:While I can't think of too many businessmen more deserving of a comeuppance, Hain has acted despicably here. The legal process hadn't even run its course and Hain thinks he knows best? Ar5ehole.

Let me get this right, it is Hain you hope gets his comeuppance and not Green?

Give me strength! No, you haven't got it 'right'. If Green has done what's alleged, he should get the proverbial book thrown at him. Hain, however, has (in my opinion) undercut the judicial process (from a position of knowing d!ck all other than through an obviously unbiased communication with one of the 'victims') when that process probably hasn't concluded yet. He's a bell end and a coward.

As I tried to point out to you on the golf board the other day the rate of false accusations when it comes to r***, harassment and sexual assault is tiny.  survivors don't revel in having the spotlight thrown on them and it is certainly not an experience people would falsely bring upon themselves.

McLaren wrote:As I tried to point out to you on the golf board the other day the rate of false accusations when it comes to r***, harassment and sexual assault is tiny.  survivors don't revel in having the spotlight thrown on them and it is certainly not an experience people would falsely bring upon themselves.

Not good enough, and where are your stats on this please? I accept the fact that 'survivors' (as if it's somehow fatal) won't wish to have to endure re-living something, but that's not the way it either works, or should work. We know you don't understand that though, so don't worry about it.

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:As I tried to point out to you on the golf board the other day the rate of false accusations when it comes to r***, harassment and sexual assault is tiny.  survivors don't revel in having the spotlight thrown on them and it is certainly not an experience people would falsely bring upon themselves.

Not good enough, and where are your stats on this please? I accept the fact that 'survivors' (as if it's somehow fatal) won't wish to have to endure re-living something, but that's not the way it either works, or should work. We know you don't understand that though, so don't worry about it.

I disagree..Powerful people get to silence accusers everyday..

If Greene's outing is a glimpse of the future glad to see it.

Like all things nothing is perfect...If operation Yew tree bags a Glitter at Cliff Richard's expense it is collateral damage.

Time the victims got a fair shake.

Bollox to Philip Green..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:As I tried to point out to you on the golf board the other day the rate of false accusations when it comes to r***, harassment and sexual assault is tiny.  survivors don't revel in having the spotlight thrown on them and it is certainly not an experience people would falsely bring upon themselves.

Not good enough, and where are your stats on this please? I accept the fact that 'survivors' (as if it's somehow fatal) won't wish to have to endure re-living something, but that's not the way it either works, or should work. We know you don't understand that though, so don't worry about it.

I disagree..Powerful people get to silence accusers everyday..

If Greene's outing is a glimpse of the future glad to see it.

Like all things nothing is perfect...If operation Yew tree bags a Glitter at Cliff Richard's expense it is collateral damage.

Time the victims got a fair shake.

Bollox to Philip Green..

Complete. And. Utter. Tripe.

You're talking rubbish and (I hope) you know it.

I'm sure Cliff is wholeheartedly in agreement with your absurd take on this.

Lord Hain doesn't think I'm talking rubbish..

For too long powerful people are being accused of consistently vile behaviour and are able to hush it up with these injunctions.....

My sympathies are with those that struggle to fight back..

Like Hain....Who I admire from his anti apartheid work..

Hmm............. I wonder what activist Tommy Robinson thinks of the fuss? I guess he's maybe laughing.

Contempt hearing for Hain? Oh sorry, Privilege.

You mean those Asian defendants that were in court facing charges ??....

SecretFly wrote:Hmm............. I wonder what racist activist Tommy Robinson Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon thinks of the fuss?  I guess he's maybe laughing.

Contempt hearing for Hain?  Oh sorry, Privilege.  

I saw it suggested that Mr Yaxley-Lennon got his EDL name by combining the names of his favourite rock opera with his favourite family from Neighbours.  That would make my EDL name Bat out of Hell Bishop.

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Hmm............. I wonder what racist activist Tommy Robinson Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon thinks of the fuss?  I guess he's maybe laughing.

Contempt hearing for Hain?  Oh sorry, Privilege.  

I saw it suggested that Mr Yaxley-Lennon got his EDL name by combining the names of his favourite rock opera with his favourite family from Neighbours.  That would make my EDL name Bat out of Hell Bishop.

That's interesting, superfly. Though I must confess that I don't follow EDL closely enough to be up on all that coded name stuff. Is the fan club popular?