Jeremy Corbyn

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 115 of 279 < 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 >

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Jul 16 8.11am
The Labour leader candidates campaigning by calling for another referendum are pitiful. Not only is it a transparent political manoeuver to place Labour as the party of the whining Remainers, it also tries to make a mockery of our democracy. Labour have had no real focus in recent years and this is their pathetic insulting attempt to appeal to a certain section of society and distance themselves from the left of their party. Could they get any more embarrassing?

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Jul 16 8.11am

The Labour leader candidates campaigning by calling for another referendum are pitiful.

Not only is it a transparent political manoeuver to place Labour as the party of the whining Remainers, it also tries to make a mockery of our democracy.
Labour have had no real focus in recent years and this is their pathetic insulting attempt to appeal to a certain section of society and distance themselves from the left of their party.

Could they get any more embarrassing?

Slimey Toad Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 14 Jul 16 11.40am
The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus: Party Conference NEC CLPs Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members. That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter. Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest. Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am)

Slimey Toad

Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 14 Jul 16 11.40am

The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus:

Party Conference
NEC
CLPs

Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members.

That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter.

Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest.

Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am)

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 14 Jul 16 1.13pm
Originally posted by Slimey Toad The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus: Party Conference NEC CLPs Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members. That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter. Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest. Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am) Another view of the same thing is to note that it's the thousands of members who have more of a say in policy that a couple of hundred MPs..... Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 14 Jul 16 1.13pm

Originally posted by Slimey Toad

The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus:

Party Conference
NEC
CLPs

Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members.

That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter.

Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest.

Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am)

Another view of the same thing is to note that it's the thousands of members who have more of a say in policy that a couple of hundred MPs.....

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 12.27pm
The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world. It's not only Corbyn and his cronies who has delusions about the chances of uniliteral disarmament but a disturbingly large amount of supposedly intelligent people. it's like 70 years of avoiding nuclear war never happened. Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU. Loony alert.

Hrolf The Ganger

18 Jul 16 12.27pm

The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world.

It's not only Corbyn and his cronies who has delusions about the chances of uniliteral disarmament but a disturbingly large amount of supposedly intelligent people.
it's like 70 years of avoiding nuclear war never happened.

Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU.

Loony alert.

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.06pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world. It's not only Corbyn and his cronies who has delusions about the chances of uniliteral disarmament but a disturbingly large amount of supposedly intelligent people. it's like 70 years of avoiding nuclear war never happened. Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU. Loony alert. Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us? No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.06pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world.

Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU.

Loony alert.

Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us?

No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 1.16pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us? No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question. Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

Hrolf The Ganger

18 Jul 16 1.16pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us?

No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question.

Seriously?

All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it.
This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft.
Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.25pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) And there is the crux of the matter. Reality and the denial of it, (in favour of some self designed lefty utopia full of unicorn farts and same sex parents). Is what drives the more lunatic lefty fringe these days. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.25pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

And there is the crux of the matter. Reality and the denial of it, (in favour of some self designed lefty utopia full of unicorn farts and same sex parents). Is what drives the more lunatic lefty fringe these days.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.31pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) Hrolf I stand "Four square" behind you on this matter.

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.31pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

Hrolf

I stand "Four square" behind you on this matter.

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.32pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.32pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies?

MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent?

I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers.

If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm)

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.39pm
[Link]

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.39pm

[Link]

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.42pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) -.-' "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.42pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies?

MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent?

I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers.

If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm)

-.-'

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jul 16 1.44pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) I do think the UK needs a nuclear capability, its one of those things that maybe if we didn't have it, I wouldn't be keen on pursuing it, but as we are a nuclear power, giving it up without significant gains in return seems pointless. I'm not sold on the idea that Trident is the best solution, I think its probably the cheapest most politically convenient solution, and that a lot of people haven't really thought too hard about the implications of making it a modern nuclear deterrent that is better than a land based missile solution. In reality, I think there are maybe only three nuclear powers capable of ensuring the destruction of the UK in which Trident would be a 'MAD' solution (France, the US and maybe Russia). Other countries have nuclear capability, but very limited and the distances involved would make such a strike very detectable in time for retaliation (and its very debatable whether Russia or the US, could launch a sufficiently destructive strike to wipe out the UK's capacity for retaliation. Trident is very much last years man being dressed up in a nice new suit. Problem of Trident has always been the range of its missile capability. During the 60s the UK lagged behind in solid state fuel technology and was incapable of developing long range intercontinental ballistic missiles - and went with trident, which made sense, but never invested in developing those technologies necessary for ICBM capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Truth probably is, that the only way the UK can even pretend to have a nuclear deterrent, is Trident. But it won't be a 'MAD' solution, except for one nation at a time "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Jul 16 1.44pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

I do think the UK needs a nuclear capability, its one of those things that maybe if we didn't have it, I wouldn't be keen on pursuing it, but as we are a nuclear power, giving it up without significant gains in return seems pointless.

I'm not sold on the idea that Trident is the best solution, I think its probably the cheapest most politically convenient solution, and that a lot of people haven't really thought too hard about the implications of making it a modern nuclear deterrent that is better than a land based missile solution.

In reality, I think there are maybe only three nuclear powers capable of ensuring the destruction of the UK in which Trident would be a 'MAD' solution (France, the US and maybe Russia). Other countries have nuclear capability, but very limited and the distances involved would make such a strike very detectable in time for retaliation (and its very debatable whether Russia or the US, could launch a sufficiently destructive strike to wipe out the UK's capacity for retaliation.

Trident is very much last years man being dressed up in a nice new suit. Problem of Trident has always been the range of its missile capability. During the 60s the UK lagged behind in solid state fuel technology and was incapable of developing long range intercontinental ballistic missiles - and went with trident, which made sense, but never invested in developing those technologies necessary for ICBM capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

Truth probably is, that the only way the UK can even pretend to have a nuclear deterrent, is Trident. But it won't be a 'MAD' solution, except for one nation at a time

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jul 16 1.54pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) Potentially, Russia China France pakistan India The US Israel North Korea Realistically, only North Korea is probably a real threat, and not to the UK. pakistan represents more the threat of Islamists obtaining control of existing nuclear arsenal. Russia and China however would be likely to use the lack of military threat as a means of leverage (and it would mean NATO would only have France as a localised nuclear power - making it far more dependent on the US). And within a decade maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, its going to start an arms race in the middle east, likely with Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't rule Japan or South Korea out of interest, with North Korea 'joining the club'. Currently, there is no real nuclear threat to the UK, which I believe makes it the ideal time to phase out Trident for a land based long range system. Only France realistically could launch a strike to achieve total destruction without the UK being able to launch from land. Problem really is that Trident only ever has the capability to retaliate to one of those threats, not all of them. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Jul 16 1.54pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies?

MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent?

I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers.

If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm)

Potentially,

Russia
China
France
pakistan
India
The US
Israel
North Korea

Realistically, only North Korea is probably a real threat, and not to the UK. pakistan represents more the threat of Islamists obtaining control of existing nuclear arsenal. Russia and China however would be likely to use the lack of military threat as a means of leverage (and it would mean NATO would only have France as a localised nuclear power - making it far more dependent on the US).

And within a decade maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, its going to start an arms race in the middle east, likely with Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't rule Japan or South Korea out of interest, with North Korea 'joining the club'.

Currently, there is no real nuclear threat to the UK, which I believe makes it the ideal time to phase out Trident for a land based long range system. Only France realistically could launch a strike to achieve total destruction without the UK being able to launch from land.

Problem really is that Trident only ever has the capability to retaliate to one of those threats, not all of them.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 3.26pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) I understand the basis of the counter argument and I accept that Trident itself is in flexible and needs updating but are you really telling me that in the event of a nuclear stand off, you would rely on other friendly nations to protect us? Sure, nukes give us a place at the big table and that is well worth the cost in itself. You want to give that up for what? La la land left wing ideals? There are so many scenarios that could occur in the future and to remove our nuclear deterrent because of some fantasy about global disarmament is insane.

Hrolf The Ganger

18 Jul 16 3.26pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies?

MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent?

I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers.

If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm)

I understand the basis of the counter argument and I accept that Trident itself is in flexible and needs updating but are you really telling me that in the event of a nuclear stand off, you would rely on other friendly nations to protect us?
Sure, nukes give us a place at the big table and that is well worth the cost in itself. You want to give that up for what? La la land left wing ideals?
There are so many scenarios that could occur in the future and to remove our nuclear deterrent because of some fantasy about global disarmament is insane.

elgrande bedford 18 Jul 16 3.39pm
Originally posted by dannyh And there is the crux of the matter. Reality and the denial of it, (in favour of some self designed lefty utopia full of unicorn farts and same sex parents). Is what drives the more lunatic lefty fringe these days. Ha ha post of the day..... always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

elgrande

bedford 18 Jul 16 3.39pm

Originally posted by dannyh

Ha ha post of the day.....

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

steeleye20 Croydon 18 Jul 16 3.46pm
It needs more than updating it needs a complete re-think. Silent submarines are 1980's technology its a big if that they are not detectable now and more so in the future. I would rather have Jeremy Corbyn looking at this than the tories just rubber stamping it as usual. He is actually willing to go along with Trident in some form if all the work is done in UK. I wonder if the truth is that this is a first strike weapon then that would deter (mad isn't it)

steeleye20

Croydon 18 Jul 16 3.46pm

It needs more than updating it needs a complete re-think.

Silent submarines are 1980's technology its a big if that they are not detectable now and more so in the future.

I would rather have Jeremy Corbyn looking at this than the tories just rubber stamping it as usual.

He is actually willing to go along with Trident in some form if all the work is done in UK.

I wonder if the truth is that this is a first strike weapon then that would deter (mad isn't it)

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 Jul 16 3.50pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) ARE YOU FOR REAL ??????? Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 Jul 16 3.50pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies?

MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent?

I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers.

If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm)

ARE YOU FOR REAL ???????

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 3.58pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 It needs more than updating it needs a complete re-think. Silent submarines are 1980's technology its a big if that they are not detectable now and more so in the future. I would rather have Jeremy Corbyn looking at this than the tories just rubber stamping it as usual. He is actually willing to go along with Trident in some form if all the work is done in UK. I wonder if the truth is that this is a first strike weapon then that would deter (mad isn't it) ...................................................... I wouldn't trust him to change a light bulb. You want a known CND supporting surrender monkey to asses our military capability? That's like asking Jimmy Saville to babysit your kids. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 3.58pm)

Hrolf The Ganger

18 Jul 16 3.58pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

It needs more than updating it needs a complete re-think.

Silent submarines are 1980's technology its a big if that they are not detectable now and more so in the future.

I would rather have Jeremy Corbyn looking at this than the tories just rubber stamping it as usual.

He is actually willing to go along with Trident in some form if all the work is done in UK.

I wonder if the truth is that this is a first strike weapon then that would deter (mad isn't it)

......................................................
I wouldn't trust him to change a light bulb.

You want a known CND supporting surrender monkey to asses our military capability?

That's like asking Jimmy Saville to babysit your kids.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 3.58pm)

steeleye20 Croydon 18 Jul 16 4.12pm
Please answer sensibly or not at all thank you. Really you are a c**t etc etc please refrain

steeleye20

Croydon 18 Jul 16 4.12pm

Please answer sensibly or not at all thank you.

Really you are a c**t etc etc please refrain

Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 4.37pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Please answer sensibly or not at all thank you. Really you are a c**t etc etc please refrain No one has called you anything/ How about giving a coherent justification for clinging on to the idea that the entire world will disarm and that defending ourselves will no longer be necessary when all the evidence points toward than never happening in the imaginable future.

Hrolf The Ganger

18 Jul 16 4.37pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Please answer sensibly or not at all thank you.

Really you are a c**t etc etc please refrain

No one has called you anything/

How about giving a coherent justification for clinging on to the idea that the entire world will disarm and that defending ourselves will no longer be necessary when all the evidence points toward than never happening in the imaginable future.

Page 115 of 279 < 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map