Predict outcome of June 2017 UK General Election here

[Pinkman]

No, I wasn't paying attention, and only heard a bit of it as I was watching the other channel as well. I was in fact, defending Nick Clegg when someone was slagging him off after all he's done, by saying his replacement didn't look that great.

 

Is that OK with you? Or do you want to continue hounding me for an innocent, but unfortunate remark, in your own little personal vendetta?

 

To sum up then: you didn't actually watch his speech but decided it was uninspiring. When I asked what you didn't find inspiring about a man with a disability wanting to champion disability causes you changed your tune.

 

Even though in his acceptance speech he'd mentioned his disability and what he wanted to achieve. Which you'd know if you'd watched the speech. You now admit you didn't. So why express an opinion on him without knowing what he said?

 

I think you have said quite enough now.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Pinkman

[I1L2T3]

Hmmmm, I don't the lad personally but I know people who do from when he's been working in bars around West Street, and from what I can gather he wouldn't give a stuff about what Anna said.

 

You're over-cooking this Pinkman. It seems to me just to attack other posters.

[Pinkman]

Hmmmm, I don't the lad personally but I know people who do from when he's been working in bars around West Street, and from what I can gather he wouldn't give a stuff about what Anna said.

 

You're over-cooking this Pinkman. It seems to me just to attack other posters.

 

So you think it's ok to express opinions about political speeches you admit you haven't listened to?

 

OK I1L2T3; I don't know what your business is. Imagine I did know and wrote a bad review of it, even though I haven't actually been a patron of it. Is that ok?

 

I can accept Anna didn't call him a divvy in relation to his disability. Still not very nice though is it? She plainly knows nothing about him.

 

When I asked what she found uninspiring about a man with cerebral palsy becoming an MP to champion disability causes she said:

 

Sorry. I've only just found that out. I didn't know, and yes that puts a whole different light on it.

 

So, she's inspired by him now she knows he has a disability? OK, that's great. Except he said he had a disability and he wanted to champion disability causes in his speech which Anna had previously described as uninspiring.

 

If you think that's ok and I'm over egging the pudding so be it. I don't agree with much you say either.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Pinkman

[I1L2T3]

So you think it's ok to express opinions about political speeches you admit you haven't listened to?

 

OK I1L2T3, I don't know what your business is. Imagine I did know and wrote a bad review of it, even though I haven't actually been a patron of it. Is that ok?

 

I'm attacking Anna you say? The same Anna who called someone a divvy and then said his speech was uninspiring even though she didn't actually listen to its content? I accept Anna didn't call him a divvy in relation to his disability. Still not very nice though is it? She plainly knows nothing about him.

 

Well it's the same Anna that has supported Corbyn through thick and thin, and the same Anna who has helped made it possible for candidates like O'Mara to be elected.

 

Up and down the country there are a couple of hundred thousand people just like Anna who never gave up and my guess is that Jared O'Mara would gladly buy each and every one of them a pint if he could.

 

I agree it wasn't nice but to be fair to Anna it was retracted almost immediately.

[Pinkman]

Well it's the same Anna that has supported Corbyn through thick and thin, and the same Anna who has helped made it possible for candidates like O'Mara to be elected.

 

Up and down the country there are a couple of hundred thousand people just like Anna who never gave up and my guess is that Jared O'Mara would gladly buy each and every one of them a pint if he could.

 

I agree it wasn't nice but to be fair to Anna it was retracted almost immediately.

 

My PC went belly up mid edit. My post above changed.

 

The divvy thing isn't the issue. The issue is describing something negatively and then backtracking when you get the extra info.

 

She could say, "I thought it wasn't inspiring at all. Others have bigger and better dreams for the differently abled community!" Maybe that's true?

 

She didn't. She decided that learning he had a disability changed her opinion of him. That's also fair enough. But, if she had listened to the speech he gave rather than just claiming she had, she WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!!

 

I've not listened to Harry Styles's new album. I'm going on amazon now to say its crap. Same thing isn't it?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Pinkman

[I1L2T3]

My PC went belly up mid edit. My post above changed.

 

The divvy thing isn't the issue. The issue is describing something negatively and then backtracking when you get the extra info.

 

She could say, "I thought it wasn't inspiring at all. Others have bigger and better dreams for the differently abled community!" Maybe that's true?

 

She didn't. She decided that learning he had a disability changed her opinion of him. That's also fair enough. But, if she had listened to the speech he gave rather than just claiming she had, she WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!!

 

I've not listened to Harry Styles's new album. I'm going on amazon now to say its crap. Same thing isn't it?

 

Explain why this is such a burning issue for you. I'm genuinely interested.

[Pinkman]

Explain why this is such a burning issue for you. I'm genuinely interested.

 

Because I question everything Anna says. The things she wrote about what would happen if the Tories won were beyond hysterical. Unfounded ludicrous nonsense with no basis in reality. (You weren't much better I might add but without all the Bilderberg crap).

 

She also seems to have an issue with the mainstream media and tells us all we need check where we get all our information from. She seems to be a believer in New World Orders and Shadowy Government but at the same time has no clue what is actually going on. She said if Corbyn won the election, the civil service would make his life impossible. I asked, what, all 400,000 of them? She claimed a top few civil servants actually run the country and she knows a few civil servants who agree with her. Considering there are 400,000 civil servants in this country I think probably most of us know a few. The ones I know don't say the same things as Anna's paranoid friends that's for sure.

 

As an example of her seeming to know little about what is really going on in the world; she pondered if troops had been deployed in London during Operation Temperer. I don't know what media she views but every single item I saw relating to this showed troops IN LONDON. I cannot fathom how she cannot have known that they were deployed in London. She asked if Temperer was an act of theatre by the government. I pointed out it was standard procedure to free up police to do police work. I should have added Andy Burnham fully supported it.

 

Then she posted her comment about Jared O'Mara. I was genuinely curious about what she found uninspiring in his speech. And it soon became clear she didn't actually know anything about him and hadn't actually listened to it.

 

Basically I1L2T3, I don't trust a single word she says about anything. And as try I show here, neither should you.

 

That ok?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Pinkman

[I1L2T3]

Because I question everything Anna says. The things she wrote about what would happen if the Tories won were beyond hysterical. Unfounded ludicrous nonsense with no basis in reality. (You weren't much better I might add but without all the Bilderberg crap).

 

She also seems to have an issue with the mainstream media and tells us all we need check where we get all our information from. She seems to be a believer in New World Orders and Shadowy Government but at the same time has no clue what is actually going on. She said if Corbyn won the election, the civil service would make his life impossible. I asked, what, all 400,000 of them? She claimed a top few civil servants actually run the country and she knows a few civil servants who agree with her. Considering there are 400,000 civil servants in this country I think probably most of us know a few. The ones I know don't say the same things as Anna's paranoid friends that's for sure.

 

As an example of her seeming to know little about what is really going on in the world; she pondered if troops had been deployed in London during Operation Temperer. I don't know what media she views but every single item I saw relating to this showed troops IN LONDON. I cannot fathom how she cannot have known that they were deployed in London. She asked if Temperer was an act of theatre by the government. I pointed out it was standard procedure to free up police to do police work. I should have added Any Burnham fully supported it.

 

Then she posted her comment about Jared O'Mara. I was genuinely curious about what she found uninspiring in his speech. And it soon became clear she didn't actually know anything about him and hadn't actually listened to it.

 

Basically I1L2T3, I don't trust a single word she says about anything. And as try I show here, neither should you.

 

That ok?

 

No it's not ok.

 

That feels to me that you are singling out an individual poster.

 

Look, we all have disagreements on here. There are some posters I've never seen eye to eye with but every so often I, and almost always the poster I don't agree with, both find some time to share a joke or lighten things up a little. One year you will be at each other arguing, the next you could be allies of a sort - LooB and Obelix for example closely share my views on the EU but you'd never have guessed we had much in common 12 months ago.

 

I suggest you try and just lighten things a bit.

[mort]

The bickering and name calling can cease now.

[L00b]

No it's not ok.

 

That feels to me that you are singling out an individual poster.

 

Look, we all have disagreements on here. There are some posters I've never seen eye to eye with but every so often I, and almost always the poster I don't agree with, both find some time to share a joke or lighten things up a little. One year you will be at each other arguing, the next you could be allies of a sort - LooB and Obelix for example closely share my views on the EU but you'd never have guessed we had much in common 12 months ago.

 

I suggest you try and just lighten things a bit.

Earlier, mate, earlier, the referendum is 12 months old and our common stance goes back well before it

 

But we sure have had some proper political ding-dongs (I might have put you on ignore awhile back then, I daren't search ) in times gone by.

 

Mostly because I took my time gravitating closer to the centre ground. Credit to you and a few others on here and elsewhere. Even to Anna, whose eyes I'll never stop trying to open: she means well, and is worth it by reason of same. Pinkman, take a leaf, freely and gladly given

Edited June 13, 2017 by L00b