Labour Crusties In A Pickle Over PIE

[milquetoast1]

Reading this thread is rather like rubbernecking as one drives past a car wreck on the motorway.

[JFKvsNixon]

Bago must have moved to Barnsley

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

[dosxuk]

Are you a responsible and mature person dosxuk? Serious question.

 

Yes. Not that it's relevant, unlike whether you're a native English speaker.

 

Admitting that English is not your first language would simply mean people will give you an easier time when trying to decypher your posts - you don't need to tell us what your actual nationality is, for all we would know you could be from a strictly Welsh speaking home, or you could be a malfunctioning internet bot.

 

As it stands, if you want us to treat you as a English speaker, then you are going to get hassle about your posts, because they make little sense and you are constantly attacking or misinterpreting other users for things they have not said.

 

I suspect from the inability to answer such a simple question, that the answer is no. I would also imagine that the idea of posts being run through a translator and back is not that far wide of the mark.

[Mecky]

The whole thing smacks of desperation from the right

[salsafan]

Really interesting thread ... does anyone remember what it is about?

 

The OP thinks that by linking that link, he is discussing about politics and he wanted this to be discussed. But what he also failed to see, is that the newspaper is smearing the actual politicians and stating that they are actually pushing forward policies to enable a child to have sex when they are still a child. In another phrase, it is "coercing" through political entities or any entities to advice and push children to become sexually active from a young age.

 

THAT is why "I" am blowing my top here. Who in the hell in their mind would indeed do that ? I then was diplomatic and say that it is just for any politician to be held accountable for their political decisions, as it affect so many people, which is true. However, in this particular example, the newspaper is misconstruing some of the wording of the constitution of that entity, and state that any members will then follow and endorse such rules. If I hold that judgment, then I also should apply that same judgment to that newspaper for spewing vile crap to society and the general public to begin with. Or for disturbing the peace.

 

See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

 

The other thing is, we seem to "pass on" these information and "laugh" about it, but in reality, how are we setting up as a moral citizen and as an adult onto the next generation ? How to slate someone, but try to get away with it in a marginal but legal context ? i.e. how to be sneaky ?

[Mecky]

The OP thinks that by linking that link, he is discussing about politics and he wanted this to be discussed. But what he also failed to see, is that the newspaper is smearing the actual politicians and stating that they are actually pushing forward policies to enable a child to have sex when they are still a child. In another phrase, it is "coercing" through political entities or any entities to advice and push children to become sexually active from a young age.

 

THAT is why "I" am blowing my top here. Who in the hell in their mind would indeed do that ? I then was diplomatic and say that it is just for any politician to be held accountable for their political decisions, as it affect so many people, which is true. However, in this particular example, the newspaper is misconstruing some of the wording of the constitution of that entity, and state that any members will then follow and endorse such rules. If I hold that judgment, then I also should apply that same judgment to that newspaper for spewing vile crap to society and the general public to begin with. Or for disturbing the peace.

 

See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

 

The other thing is, we seem to "pass on" these information and "laugh" about it, but in reality, how are we setting up as a moral citizen and as an adult onto the next generation ? How to slate someone, but try to get away with it in a marginal but legal context ? i.e. how to be sneaky ?

 

Public opinion is all that counts

[salsafan]

Yes. Not that it's relevant, unlike whether you're a native English speaker.

 

Admitting that English is not your first language would simply mean people will give you an easier time when trying to decypher your posts - you don't need to tell us what your actual nationality is, for all we would know you could be from a strictly Welsh speaking home, or you could be a malfunctioning internet bot.

 

As it stands, if you want us to treat you as a English speaker, then you are going to get hassle about your posts, because they make little sense and you are constantly attacking or misinterpreting other users for things they have not said.

 

I suspect from the inability to answer such a simple question, that the answer is no. I would also imagine that the idea of posts being run through a translator and back is not that far wide of the mark.

 

You do not realise that as much as this is the internet, this is also and still is a social space, and when you are being bullied, then you need to kissass to someone else? No. How about judging someone for their own actions too? It is obvious that the OP intended to invoke emotions, and boy has he got it ! Maybe not his intent to hurt other readers or to hurt some other females and invoke anger within them, but that did occur. Cos it is talking of a few female MPs actually WANTING to advocate children to have sex at an illegal and young age. Has he lost his mind in advocating and promoting such materials as if these MPs DO want this ? Have you also lost your mind when I tried to fight back on this kind of stupidity and talk and promotion socially ? Am I wrong in wanting this ? To be honest, you are making me feel more and more paranoid that this desire of me thinking that no woman would want this is NOT true, and yet there are some posters who does not support me in actually dispelling this kind of myth and state "no, you are wrong, and here are the facts", so don't be a woman who wants this ??? This is brainwashing !

 

I can only criticise those without empathy and without an ounce of common sense, when the subject that they talk of is actually pretty vile to say the least. Most people would not even open-mindedly contemplate such ideas or topics, but yet so many people often do in the sake and in the name of "open minded discussion". Crap.

 

Are you one of these people that you like to see women advocating children to have sex at a young age ? I like to know. I really like to know, cos this thread IS about that.

Edited February 20, 2014 by salsafan

[boyfriday]

The OP thinks that by linking that link, he is discussing about politics and he wanted this to be discussed. But what he also failed to see, is that the newspaper is smearing the actual politicians and stating that they are actually pushing forward policies to enable a child to have sex when they are still a child. In another phrase, it is "coercing" through political entities or any entities to advice and push children to become sexually active from a young age.

 

THAT is why "I" am blowing my top here. Who in the hell in their mind would indeed do that ? I then was diplomatic and say that it is just for any politician to be held accountable for their political decisions, as it affect so many people, which is true. However, in this particular example, the newspaper is misconstruing some of the wording of the constitution of that entity, and state that any members will then follow and endorse such rules. If I hold that judgment, then I also should apply that same judgment to that newspaper for spewing vile crap to society and the general public to begin with. Or for disturbing the peace.

 

See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

 

The other thing is, we seem to "pass on" these information and "laugh" about it, but in reality, how are we setting up as a moral citizen and as an adult onto the next generation ? How to slate someone, but try to get away with it in a marginal but legal context ? i.e. how to be sneaky ?

 

Think you're wrong about my motivations there salsafan. You can hardly call me a celebrant for the Daily Mail, however they've highlighted an (alleged) connection which existed between PIE and senior Labour Party figures when they were involved in the NCCL.

 

The DM have gone to print over this and provided some evidence of the association. The politicians 'smeared' have every opportunity to address the charge, usually politicians are only too happy to wax lyrical about whatever it is that concerns them.

 

Personally, I haven't offered a view, but the question I asked is 'should they be required to acknowledge/apologise' for opinions/views they might have held 40 years ago?'

[dosxuk]

blah blah blah

 

While I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I shall go back to my earlier conclusion - you're nothing but a really poor troll

 

Please climb back under your bridge.

[salsafan]

Think you're wrong about my motivations there salsafan. You can hardly call me a celebrant for the Daily Mail, however they've highlighted an (alleged) connection which existed between PIE and senior Labour Party figures when they were involved in the NCCL.

 

The DM have gone to print over this and provided some evidence of the association. The politicians 'smeared' have every opportunity to address the charge, usually politicians are only too happy to wax lyrical about whatever it is that concerns them.

 

Personally, I haven't offered a view, but the question I asked is 'should they be required to acknowledge/apologise' for opinions/views they might have held 40 years ago?'

 

Do you realise that you are continuing the bullying even when a paper write BS like that ? We can discuss Employment Law and so forth, but you are not touching the subject of employment laws here in this instance. Do you realise this ?

 

My "sensitive" alarm bell is ringing "advocation of children's rape", and "continuing to smear" and continue to negatively portray and degrade another human being of their position as an MP and so forth.

 

Too far is too far.