JoeLeg

Well, maybe and maybe not. The idea that a ?deal went sour? and someone got killed as a result really isn?t that far-fetched, when you think about all the stuff we know humans will do to each other in pursuit of power and money. That said, rocking up in front of a Select Commitee with pink hair and an admiral that he heard it all from a mate...

Shutting of the gas is an oft-touted possible move by Putin, but a very risky one. Not only is energy one of Russia?s few sources of income (at a time when they are financially not as solid as they would like) but it would be seen as a major escalation. Let?s not forget that it is generally agreed by all concerned world governments that closing the Straits of Hormuz would be considered tantamount to an act of war, such is international dependence on Middle East oil (though Arica might care less these days). For Putin to turn the gas off might not be quite so incendiary, but it?s not far off. Not saying he wouldn?t do it, but if he does that?ll really worry me. It?s starting to have a whiff of brinkmanship about it.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Back Putin in to a corner but make sure that you > leave that little "Exit with Face" door open - or > he will come out fighting. Yes, exactly.

I would say go. Our family is now too deeply entrenched on the school system to change, but Part of us wishes we had left. There?s also the little matter of finding work, as my current job is very considerate where my work-life balance is concerned which is why I?m still here after several years. If, however, employment is not an obstacle then I would say leave. Sue makes some good suggestions too, but ultimately you only know what is best for you. But London is a hard place to live in some ways.

Jim1234 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, > > I just want to make one further point here. I > should start by saying I am the type of 'Marxist > maggot' that the poster is threatening, and I'm > very much anti-racist. > > However I take issue with the way in which > Peckhamguy has seemingly been ganged up on and > almost silenced by other posters. I am not for a > minute taking his side in terms of his argument, > however I'm taking his side as I think people have > been rude to him. I've seen a couple of posts, for > example, insulting his use of English, or just > shouting him down in a way that isn't particularly > constructive. I don't see how personal insults of > right wingers do anything productive. Are you for real? Are you genuinely saying we should be respectful of apologists for neo-nazi?s? There?s a ridiculous idea that during online discussions one should always - without exception - ?play the ball, not the man.? The idea that a person may espouse any view whatsoever and be accorded respect for themselves despite what they say? Well it?s (to put it politely) absolute rubbish. Some stuff is too much. He came on here and told us that a bunch of extremist white supremiscists were basically ok. Someone who does that just lost all privileges.

Amy A; Thank you for a far more coherent and reasoned response than I was able to muster. I had to delete my reply before pressing ?post? because it wasn?t going to be helpful, but you?ve managed to do it much better. Peckhamguy - you really should have a word with yourself.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Interestingly, when I joined the WRP years back > (me and my mate fancied a couple of girls), they > were telling us to persuade black people to join > them and gave distinct instructions on the lines > of chat. When I left the WRP I was threatened with > physical violence...I left because they were a > bunch of idiots and only interested in power for > themselves- and of course it gave the air-heads of > the theatrical world an opportunity for virtue > signalling- I mean it is VERY easy to be a libtard > when you are well off! You just can?t help yourself, can you? Sad...

(Deleted because posted in wrong place)

Peckhamguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Silly rendell cover my tracks with snowflakes yh > lol > Everyone knows me here and they know im nothing of > the sort, cheers 🥂 tho Randell top man You?ve made a total of 31 posts, so unless you used to post under a different name I?d say no, no one here knows you, except for the bit where you defend neo-nazi?s. You don?t seem to like being argued with, which makes you quite the snowflake yourself.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fishermen really ought to zip it- they > singlehandedly decimated the stocks during the > 60's and early 70s and appear to be intent on > destroying whatever is left. They have resisted > all attempts at taking on consensual limits in > order to preserve what stocks are left and seem > intent on going for a last big send off before we > can officially declare the water around the UK > biologically dead. All of this is very true, but UK fishing vessels are hardly unique. It?s the same the world over, particularly Japan. Although it looks as if local cod stocks are recovering slowly, so that?s something, it it?s taken a lot of effort. Actually that?s not entirely true - Iceland and Norway are good at stock management.

Fisheries - one of those groups that thought Leaving would be really simple and would give them back everything. The entire fishing industry voted Leave - and I can understand why - but they never imagined they wouldn?t get exactly what they wanted.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hmmm, a pattern emerges over where they?ve been > > placed then. > > > What do you mean, JoeLeg? Peckham Rye, Scutari Road, Brenchley Gardens, all to the west of Forest Hill Road so far. A small geographic area. Probably isn?t significant of anything more than they chose to slap a few up quickly and run off.

Hmmm, a pattern emerges over where they?ve been placed then.

No one ?owns? forums (except for the literal owners of the website). They come and go and peak and dip and there?s always someone who says ?it?s not as good as it used to be?. Well, I?ve been hearing that said about various things since I was a kid. Nothing?s ever as good as it used to be, apparently. Then either get involved and change it, or stop using it. There?s websites I just don?t go to because I don?t like the direction they took; no one cares, it?s the internet, no one is forcing anyone to go anywhere. I?ve never understood the need to complain like this, if complaining is your only intention. I can certainly understand it of course if you?re looking to change things. There?s way more to the EDF than the small handful of arguments that take place, and if those are enough to drive you away then so be it.

Good riddance...

2wans Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't worry, JoeLeg. Sue doesn't appear to be > getting out of her bed any time soon. So now that you?ve been called out on your original insulting post and no one?s buying your excuses, you?ve retreated into outright trolling? Well, whatever makes you feel like you haven?t wasted the day...

2wans Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I'm just destroying brain cells at this point by > reading your messages. Yeah, because you?re so much more of a pleasure to read...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These ones are worse than some. Tommy Robinson, > Poisonous Katie etc claim they are protecting > society from some pretend threat of being thrown > from buildings/head chopping/stoning - this lot > would open concentration camps The difference between this lot and the Tommy/Katie characters of this world is negligible in my view. They are the thin end of the wedge, the ?acceptable? face of what is deep down a far-right, nationalist agenda. There is a debate to be had about many things in this world, and we should be having those debates, but there is also a line to be drawn, and as soon as you support or become an apologist for people who are basically the BNP in suits then you?ve joined them. Groups like this flourish when casual racism is tolerated and ?whataboutism? becomes an acceptable retort in an argument. There are many problems in the UK, some of which have not been dealt with robustly enough, but to tolerate folk like Britain First or the EDL is to give legitimacy to a political creed that has a form of apartheid as its ultimate aim. These people really do see racial differences in humans as a reason to enact state discrimination, and they have to be stopped the moment they stick their heads out; that includes treating Tommy, Katie and all the other ?I?m not racist, but...? brigade with the contempt they deserve.

There?s one stuck on a bin in Brenchley Gardens too; tried to scrap it off but it?s glued on hard, I?m going back later with a scraper if it?s still there when I go home. What always amuses me about these groups (as far as they can be ?amusing?) is how they try to make themselves seem like they are some kind of massive underground movement, when in reality they?re usually a small group of badly organised racists who found each other and bathe deeply in the shared bigotry that is the only thing that sustains them. Pretty sad frankly, but we all know what happens when they aren?t opposed at the earliest opportunity.

All of that is true. However, if this wasn?t Russia, who was it and more importantly WHY? Who benefits from the death of a Russian expat double agent just before a Russian presidential election? While I don?t rule out the possibility that this was someone else, we have to ask ourselves who would gain from framing Russia, right at this moment in time? This has strengthened Putin at home and reinforced the message that he won?t be pushed around by anyone. If it was designed to damage him then it?s backfired. ETA - whoever did this wanted it to be noticed. It?s very easy to kill someone and leave no worrying tracks - if this guy had been stabbed in his bathtub it?s barely be front page news. By using a nerve agent it sends a message, and while I agree it?s an extremely risky move by Russia, it also serves to not only make a point, but also test the UK?s response to stress in the current political climate. Putin works by keeping people off-balance, and this fits his modus operandi, frankly. Look, maybe it was someone else, maybe they?re being framed, maybe it's a conspiracy. But so far the hoofprints this whole thing is leaving are making me think horses.

There a lot of circumstantial evidence for the idea that it might not be Russia, but none of them answer one point - Motive. I?m at a loss to fathom why anyone except Russia would want to do this. To be blunt, it?s not only the simplest explanation, it?s the only plausible one which doesn?t involve a massive level of inherently implausible conspiracy.

.

That article doesn?t actually say the UK veto?d. It says we ?blocked? a UNSC ?statement?, which is not the same thing as vetoing a resolution. So the article might be correct.

While I think it entirely possible that there?s more to this than meets the eye, that website is a little bit ?tin foil?. There?s some real stretches of logic in there.

Paywall. Can you summarise?