Brexit, for once some facts.

[50Hertz]

that's to be expected. He did not turn up for interviews and when he does, he gets asked about how many children he has and whether he has ever been truthful about anything.
Did anyone watch the TV debate last night on BBC1 in Cardiff?

‘I started to watch it, but had to turn the TV set off. The last bit I saw involved a weaselly man with shifty eyes saying, “we need to rebuild trust”. You can’t do that by having the same proven liars lying to us by saying they will stop lying. It’s likely to be another lie, because they have lied too many times previously. It’s insulting. They should stand down and have someone new to replace them.

 

[50Hertz]

It’s funny.

You guys know me as someone who works at the BBC.

But I’m freelance

I did a shift a Al Jazeera today.

Was quite close to the terror attack.

None of you cared.

That is cool. You are boomers,


Nothing is more important than you.

What Is it that you need people to say to you? it sounds like you are expecting something.

 

[oyster]

What arrogance and pomposity.

Boris Johnson’s father, Stanley, has been criticised for appearing to suggest the British public is illiterate.

In an appearance on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show, the 79-year-old was told that one viewer had called his son “Pinocchio”. Johnson replied: “Pinocchio? That requires a degree of literacy which I think the Great British public doesn’t necessarily have.”

The show’s presenter, Joanna Gosling, standing in for Derbyshire, asked what he meant by that, to which Johnson replied that he didn’t want to go into it.

“That’s quite a pejorative thing to say about the Great British public,” Gosling suggested.

Johnson said: “They couldn’t spell Pinocchio if they tried, I shouldn’t have thought.” He then challenged Gosling to spell it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/29/pinocchio-row-stanley-johnson-suggests-uk-public-is-illiterate

Are we also supposed now to refer to Stanley as Geppetto? "Father" of the liar.

Added:
In 2016 - timed right for the referendum - Unicode introduced this emoji:

U+1F925

lying face

face | lie | lying face | pinocchio

 

[jonathan.agnew]

It’s funny.

You guys know me as someone who works at the BBC.

But I’m freelance

I did a shift a Al Jazeera today.

Was quite close to the terror attack.

None of you cared.

That is cool. You are boomers,


Nothing is more important than you.

Aaarghhh. As any boomer would tell you, you're not supposed to engage in public displays of cringing self pity you self obsessed jerker

 

[Fingers]

Yeah. I've dropped a ******* there

Was obviously pissed

I'm putting it down to PTSD

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Yeah. I've dropped a ******* there

Was obviously pissed

I'm putting it down to PTSD

boomers dont drop things when pissed, it improves our coordination, and we we dont get ptsd, we give it..

 

[oldgroaner]

What Is it that you need people to say to you? it sounds like you are expecting something.

A sugar lump and a pat on the muzzle?

 

[oldgroaner]

What arrogance and pomposity.

Boris Johnson’s father, Stanley, has been criticised for appearing to suggest the British public is illiterate.

In an appearance on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show, the 79-year-old was told that one viewer had called his son “Pinocchio”. Johnson replied: “Pinocchio? That requires a degree of literacy which I think the Great British public doesn’t necessarily have.”

The show’s presenter, Joanna Gosling, standing in for Derbyshire, asked what he meant by that, to which Johnson replied that he didn’t want to go into it.

“That’s quite a pejorative thing to say about the Great British public,” Gosling suggested.

Johnson said: “They couldn’t spell Pinocchio if they tried, I shouldn’t have thought.” He then challenged Gosling to spell it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/29/pinocchio-row-stanley-johnson-suggests-uk-public-is-illiterate

Are we also supposed now to refer to Stanley as Geppetto? "Father" of the liar.

Added:
In 2016 - timed right for the referendum - Unicode introduced this emoji:

U+1F925

View attachment 33184

lying face

face | lie | lying face | pinocchio

It just need a blonde wig

 

[vfr400]

Something to cheer you guys up. Not quite Brexit, but more or less the same thing.

Hungary has pulled out of the Eurovision song contest because it's "too gay". A pro government commentator said that not participating would benefit the nations mental health.

The Eurovision is similar to Brexit in that if they don't like your vote, they just ignore it and carry on with their own agenda.

In Romania's public vote for the participant, 92% of the voters voted for a young girl called Laura Bretan, who was a church quoir singer that won Romania's Got Talent in 2016. It was an absolute landslide because she was so good; however, the TV company running the final selection decided to make the public vote only 15% of the total so that an unelected panel of supposed personalities and influencers, including two gay international guests, who weren't even Romanian, could decide who to put through. Mysteriously, they put another candidate through, who ended up not even qualifying for the finals. The decision was mainly the result of the two gay panel members not voting for Laura.

I wonder why that was? Could it have been because Laura spoke up for family values at the referendum on gay weddings a year before?

Judge for yourself. Would she have won the finals?

 

[Danidl]

Something to cheer you guys up. Not quite Brexit, but more or less the same thing.

Hungary has pulled out of the Eurovision song contest because it's "too gay". A pro government commentator said that not participating would benefit the nations mental health.

The Eurovision is similar to Brexit in that if they don't like your vote, they just ignore it and carry on with their own agenda.

In Romania's public vote for the participant, 92% of the voters voted for a young girl called Laura Bretan, who was a church quoir singer that won Romania's Got Talent in 2016. It was an absolute landslide because she was so good; however, the TV company running the final selection decided to make the public vote only 15% of the total so that an unelected panel of supposed personalities and influencers, including two gay international guests, who weren't even Romanian, could decide who to put through. Mysteriously, they put another candidate through, who ended up not even qualifying for the finals. The decision was mainly the result of the two gay panel members not voting for Laura.

I wonder why that was? Could it have been because Laura spoke up for family values at the referendum on gay weddings a year before?

Judge for yourself. Would she have won the finals?

"The Eurovision is similar to Brexit in that if they don't like your vote, they just ignore it and carry on with their own agenda."

The Eurovision is not at all like the EU. The EU respected the UK vote,did not attempt to influence it, did not do anything to thwart it. All these things are all UK home grown.. Now .. in fairness and you introduced the term. Who are the nameless " they " ?

 

[vfr400]

"The Eurovision is similar to Brexit in that if they don't like your vote, they just ignore it and carry on with their own agenda."

The Eurovision is not at all like the EU. The EU respected the UK vote,did not attempt to influence it, did not do anything to thwart it. All these things are all UK home grown.. Now .. in fairness and you introduced the term. Who are the nameless " they " ?

I thought the UK was part of the Eu at the moment.

 

[Danidl]

I thought the UK was part of the Eu at the moment.

Indeed it is, so again who are the nameless "they"

 

[Nev]

Really good piece here by Jonathan Freedland, helps to explain why BJ is likely to win a working majority.

When all politicians are seen as liars, it’s Boris Johnson’s big lie that cuts through | Jonathan Freedland

Voters might not trust the prime minister in general, but on Brexit many seem to believe him, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

 

[oldgroaner]

Boris and Terrorism
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-warned-london-bridge-attack-usman-khan-stabbing-terrorist-a9227681.html
Visiting London Bridge, the prime minister attempted to deflect blame, saying: “I’ve argued that when people are sentenced to a certain number of years in prison they should serve every year of that sentence.”
But the focus switched to efforts made to deradicalise prisoners when Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor for North West England, intervened by revealing his private conversation with Mr Johnson.
He said he had raised the problem of terrorists being released “whilst ostensibly rehabilitated but still radicalised” in many government meetings, before raising it with Mr Johnson in June 2016.
“He asked me what keeps me awake at night and I told him it was this issue,” Mr Afzal said.
“When he wanted to know what to do about it, I told him it was more resources for one-to-one deradicalisation.
“Back then, he hadn’t found the ‘money tree’ so he frustratingly said there was no money.”

 

[oldgroaner]

Raab may be in trouble
Esher & Walton, constituency voting intention:
CON: 46% (-13)
LDEM: 41% (+24)
LAB: 9% (-11) via
@DeltapollUK
, 21 - 26 Nov

With tactical voting we could see
Raab-it in the headlights.

 

[oyster]

Really good piece here by Jonathan Freedland, helps to explain why BJ is likely to win a working majority.

When all politicians are seen as liars, it’s Boris Johnson’s big lie that cuts through | Jonathan Freedland

Voters might not trust the prime minister in general, but on Brexit many seem to believe him, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

Read it earlier - definitely a serious article but I am not 100% convinced. There again, JF is a bright chap with a good record of writing.

 

[vfr400]

Indeed it is, so again who are the nameless "they"

Good question. In this case we can clearly identify the two gay panel members as being culpable, but I would say that it goes a lot deeper than that. The key players in the TV company must have been aware of what was going on, so one might say that they condoned it. Why would they condone it? Could it be that some other party were sponsoring the TV company to push a pro LGBT agenda?

here in the UK, we can see that BBC, Channel 4, Sky TV and ITV all seem to be pushing certain agendas. Why is it that there are a disproportionate amount of gay people in TV programs and shows? Why is it that non-ethnic white people are disproportionally represented in adverts, programmes and shows? Normally, I'd say that it's just progressiveness until you compare Australian Sky News with UK Sky news. You would think that they have the same ultimate bosses, but they're diametrically opposite regarding the narratives and agendas they push. The only way I can rationalise that is that they rely on different sponsors, however that works.

Do you have an explanation for who "they" might be, and how it came to be that the most popular and talented act that the Romanian people chose to represent them was replaced by a rather less than average act that had little chance of winning the competition?

 

[oyster]

Raab may be in trouble
Esher & Walton, constituency voting intention:
CON: 46% (-13)
LDEM: 41% (+24)
LAB: 9% (-11) via
@DeltapollUK
, 21 - 26 Nov

With tactical voting we could see
Raab-it in the headlights.

With luck, the knowledge of bad voting intentions could cause Raab to make (more) mistakes.

 

[oldgroaner]

Indeed it is, so again who are the nameless "they"

I was curious to find out who you responded to, so hit the "unignore" button.
Oh Dear, not again, how boring. It's a timewaster from the past I put on ignore for making off topic posts, no doubt he will try the old circular argument trick of trying to get you to name his nameless "they", a standard trick, don't encourage him by responding or you'll never hear the end of the nonsense he comes out with.
Basically he wants to slag off the EU with innuendo.
Ignore now restored.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Good question. In this case we can clearly identify the two gay panel members as being culpable, but I would say that it goes a lot deeper than that. The key players in the TV company must have been aware of what was going on, so one might say that they condoned it. Why would they condone it? Could it be that some other party were sponsoring the TV company to push a pro LGBT agenda?

here in the UK, we can see that BBC, Channel 4, Sky TV and ITV all seem to be pushing certain agendas. Why is it that there are a disproportionate amount of gay people in TV programs and shows? Why is it that non-ethnic white people are disproportionally represented in adverts, programmes and shows? Normally, I'd say that it's just progressiveness until you compare Australian Sky News with UK Sky news. You would think that they have the same ultimate bosses, but they're diametrically opposite regarding the narratives and agendas they push. The only way I can rationalise that is that they rely on different sponsors, however that works.

Do you have an explanation for who "they" might be, and how it came to be that the most popular and talented act that the Romanian people chose to represent them was replaced by a rather less than average act that had little chance of winning the competition?

OK, blame this on my lack of exposure to alt right politics. But what in the world is a "non-ethnic white person"??????