Jump to content

Disgusting Guardian


FunsterJohn

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
John52 - 2019-09-17 8:33 AM

 

Bit slow aren't you *-)

They pulled it down and apologised ages ago

 

Ages ago? Ah, the wonderful world of Jonn52!

 

They've apologised? Oh good. In the wonderful world of Jonn52 this means it never happened then I suppose?

 

If this hateful and disgraceful opinion had been written in the Mail and it was Corbyn's son, this forum would have been inundated with screaming rage.

 

Did anyone mention it since it was published 'ages ago'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you trying to rake up a badly worded newspaper article from days ago that was withdrawn and apologised for within a couple of hours?

Are you struggling to find a diversion from the Supreme Court Hearing today?

The Unelected PM and Unelected Head of State have conspired to shut down the only Elected part of the Government FFS >:-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 9:00 AM

 

Why are you trying to rake up a badly worded newspaper article from days ago that was withdrawn and apologised for within a couple of hours?

Are you struggling to find a diversion from the Supreme Court Hearing today?

The Unelected PM and Unelected Head of State have conspired to shut down the only Elected part of the Government FFS >:-)

 

Trying to rake up? I thought I successfully raked it up.

 

I could have sworn though that today's hearing is to decide if anyone conspired.

 

Judge John appears to have ruled already. Do their Lordships know? They could have a day off.

 

I do love it though when a Guardian hateful and cruel article in its leader column is simply 'badly worded'.

 

You are a wag!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 8:13 AM

I do love it though when a Guardian hateful and cruel article in its leader column is simply 'badly worded'.

Isn't it a privelege to have the best of care when hundreds die on the streets.. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/17/were-telling-the-stories-of-those-who-died-homeless-heres-why

Perhaps that doesn't mean the pain is any less, Who knows?

But when someone withdraws a comment and apologises how much longer would you keep raking it up?

Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2019-09-17 8:31 AM

 

Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-)

 

We'll discover today who runs the country :-| ..........Politicians or Lawyers ;-) ........

 

If its the Judiciary..... then voting will become pointless and democracy will be dead 8-) ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 9:31 AM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 8:13 AM

I do love it though when a Guardian hateful and cruel article in its leader column is simply 'badly worded'.

Isn't it a privelege to have the best of care when hundreds die on the streets.. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/17/were-telling-the-stories-of-those-who-died-homeless-heres-why

Perhaps that doesn't mean the pain is any less, Who knows?

But when someone withdraws a comment and apologises how much longer would you keep raking it up?

Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-)

 

Sorry, I missed the rule that said we're not allowed to discuss anything else whilst this court case is on. That's the court case which will actually decide if anyone conspired.

 

I also missed the rule about a time limit on mentioning left wing disgraceful and cruel assertions.

 

I am a silly Billy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2019-09-17 8:36 AM

 

The real danger here is that we don't have a written constitution.

If BoJo gets away with this it sets a precedent.

Whats to stop an Unelected Dictator from using that to shut down the Elected part of the Government so he can do what he likes 8-)

 

If folk want to stop allowing dictators from taking power :-| ..........

 

They need to stop voting for folk who claim to be Socialists >:-) .........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:40 AM

 

John52 - 2019-09-17 8:36 AM

 

The real danger here is that we don't have a written constitution.

If BoJo gets away with this it sets a precedent.

Whats to stop an Unelected Dictator from using that to shut down the Elected part of the Government so he can do what he likes 8-)

 

If folk want to stop allowing dictators from taking power :-| ..........

 

They need to stop voting for folk who claim to be Socialists >:-) .........

 

 

When did BoJo claim to be a Socialist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM

Sorry, I missed the rule that said we're not allowed to discuss anything else whilst this court case is on.

Who said there was one?

I just asked how much longer you would keep raking up a comment someone had withdrawn and apologised for?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 10:06 AM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM

Sorry, I missed the rule that said we're not allowed to discuss anything else whilst this court case is on.

Who said there was one?

I just asked how much longer you would keep raking up a comment someone had withdrawn and apologised for?

 

 

I've already raised it. What do you mean by asking how much longer I'll keep mentioning it?

 

You are odd. And your definition of 'ages ago' is even more odd.

 

I suppose that if you learned of a similar disgraceful slur by a Tory and it happened a couple of days ago, you'd refrain from mentioning it?

 

John52 has a statute of limitations on left wing slurs folks. Oh, there's a surprise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 9:19 AM

John52 has a statute of limitations on left wing slurs folks. Oh, there's a surprise.

Surprise to me too because I've never said that.

I just asked how long you would keep raking up an old comment after the person had withdrawn and apologised for it.

Still waiting for an answer to that one *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2019-09-17 9:03 AM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:40 AM

 

John52 - 2019-09-17 8:36 AM

 

The real danger here is that we don't have a written constitution.

If BoJo gets away with this it sets a precedent.

Whats to stop an Unelected Dictator from using that to shut down the Elected part of the Government so he can do what he likes 8-)

 

If folk want to stop allowing dictators from taking power :-| ..........

 

They need to stop voting for folk who claim to be Socialists >:-) .........

 

 

When did BoJo claim to be a Socialist?

 

He hasn't ;-) ...........But Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin/Pol Pot and Mugabe did >:-) ........

 

BTW........Parliament could end Boris's reign tomorrow if they agreed to an election :D ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 10:25 AM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 9:19 AM

John52 has a statute of limitations on left wing slurs folks. Oh, there's a surprise.

Surprise to me too because I've never said that.

I just asked how long you would keep raking up an old comment after the person had withdrawn and apologised for it.

Still waiting for an answer to that one *-)

 

I'll keep raising it as long as I like. There's nothing wrong with reminding people of past events.

 

You specialise in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 10:52 AM

I'll keep raising it as long as I like.

Feel Free :-D

If you were a bit smarter you would realise you are promoting the Guardian. By showing all you have got to throw at them is a badly worded comment they withdrew and apologised for within a couple of hours, long before you stuck your oar in, there can't be much wrong with them can they :-D

Forgiveness is a virtue, and every time you rake this up again you are saying more about yourself than you are saying about them :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM

If its the Judiciary..... then voting will become pointless and democracy will be dead 8-) ........

 

Well the Judiciary trying the Prime Minister are appointed by the Prime Minister :-S

We don't have a written constitution so depend on our rulers doing the right thing ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 12:29 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 10:52 AM

I'll keep raising it as long as I like.

Feel Free :-D

If you were a bit smarter you would realise you are promoting the Guardian. By showing all you have got to throw at them is a badly worded comment they withdrew and apologised for within a couple of hours, long before you stuck your oar in, there can't be much wrong with them can they :-D

Forgiveness is a virtue, and every time you rake this up again you are saying more about yourself than you are saying about them :-(

 

Yes, I'm promoting the Guardian. I'm showing that at least one of its leader writers is vile and cruel and let's his hatred of the Tories override whatever decency he has.

 

I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording and after more protests had the decency to remove it.

 

Yes, they apologised, they had no choice. But it still happened and was a disgrace.

 

And you're even less bright because every time you respond and try to excuse them you give me the opportunity to remind people of what this newspaper's disgusting stance is.

 

As for forgiveness, you're the person that spends half of his time on here showing not a shred of forgiveness for anyone whom he thinks did the workers wrong.

 

You're the worst kind of hypocrite.

 

Carry on please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM

I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording .

 

All of which took place in a couple of hours *-)

....

What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless?

A sycophant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM

I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording .

 

All of which took place in a couple of hours *-)

....

What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless?

A sycophant?

 

I'll try to explain it simply for you.

 

If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months.

 

The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for.

 

It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication.

 

If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it.

 

And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that.

 

You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic.

 

Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM

 

John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM

I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording .

 

All of which took place in a couple of hours *-)

....

What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless?

A sycophant?

 

I'll try to explain it simply for you.

 

If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months.

 

The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for.

 

It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication.

 

If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it.

 

And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that.

 

You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic.

 

Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter.

 

You are evading the point again :-D

Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D

More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street.

Does David Cameron need your support than them?

Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM

 

John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM

I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording .

 

All of which took place in a couple of hours *-)

....

What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless?

A sycophant?

 

I'll try to explain it simply for you.

 

If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months.

 

The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for.

 

It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication.

 

If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it.

 

And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that.

 

You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic.

 

Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter.

 

You are evading the point again :-D

Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D

More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street.

Does David Cameron need your support than them?

Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you?

 

Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people.

 

Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people?

 

I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity.

 

What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen?

 

The Guardian has slipped into the sewer.

 

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2019-09-17 12:57 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM

 

John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM

I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording .

 

All of which took place in a couple of hours *-)

....

What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless?

A sycophant?

 

I'll try to explain it simply for you.

 

If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months.

 

The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for.

 

It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication.

 

If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it.

 

And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that.

 

You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic.

 

Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter.

 

You are evading the point again :-D

Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D

More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street.

Does David Cameron need your support than them?

Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you?

 

And what exactly are you doing to help 'the homeless dying in the street'? I'm sure that a caring, sharing chap like yourself will be out there every night to give help and support to the needy and helpless. I am confident you will be doing so, in light of your caring for Jeremy and Co. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...