Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So.. who are we believing.. Rishi or boris? " Boris has been caught lying so many times why would anyone believe him ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. " Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this?" Because he has delusions off being PM and he isn’t even an MP anymore , poor bloke has fucked it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this?" Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Because he has delusions off being PM and he isn’t even an MP anymore , poor bloke has fucked it "Sorry how does this answer the question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party." How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovis | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovis" Yhe honours discussion just makes him looks like he wants a special favour to bypass a process that will not accept his candidates by trying again later. His open argument and criticism of Sunak makes the Conservative party look disunited. Party members will tolerate all sorts of things, but not that. If you think that it makes him or the Conservative party look good then fair enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Because he has delusions off being PM and he isn’t even an MP anymore , poor bloke has fucked it
Sorry how does this answer the question."I feel a bit sorry for Alex (like trump) he obviously isn’t a well man, his paranoia and delusional thinking are a worry , sad to see | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovis" Sunak was Alexander’s old boss, he basically told him he can stick the majority of his honours list up his fat arse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovis Sunak was Alexander’s old boss, he basically told him he can stick the majority of his honours list up his fat arse "That's not what happened though, is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovis Yhe honours discussion just makes him looks like he wants a special favour to bypass a process that will not accept his candidates by trying again later. His open argument and criticism of Sunak makes the Conservative party look disunited. Party members will tolerate all sorts of things, but not that. If you think that it makes him or the Conservative party look good then fair enough." Why would bj be up shit creek? Did bojo ask him to bypass it.have you got proof? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can leave it to hovis" Is he toast ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovis" shit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. " Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?" if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand people like tk jump to conclusions in here. But let's be real about this. No ones seen the honours list. No ones seen the correspondence ebetween sunak and Johnson. What exactly do people believe bojo has done here? All we.have is sunak saying Boris asked me to do something I wasn't prepare to do. Even in the media they can't decide what this is. Some suggest bojo asked subak to override, other say he asked him to re apply the list. The media can't even get it's own story straight on the apparent task being asked. " must admit, I've only seen stories that Boris asked rishi to initiate revetting. That's been fairly consistent with the story ever since Nadine quit. I didn't realise there were multiple stories. But it does appear Nadine was on the original list. Or aomahe thought. And therefore something has gone awry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. " Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek "I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events. So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list. And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying. Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
"So boris isn't up shits creek then? Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule. If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do. Sunak though didn't have to say anything. Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry? I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is Feel free to retract it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand people like tk jump to conclusions in here. But let's be real about this. No ones seen the honours list. No ones seen the correspondence ebetween sunak and Johnson. What exactly do people believe bojo has done here? All we.have is sunak saying Boris asked me to do something I wasn't prepare to do. Even in the media they can't decide what this is. Some suggest bojo asked subak to override, other say he asked him to re apply the list. The media can't even get it's own story straight on the apparent task being asked. " That is a lot of defending of boris there….so let’s take them in order Sunak and the House of Lords committee would have seen the list No one has seen the correspondence… but the fact that sunak took notes knew that he thought enough about Johnson that it would be wise to cover his own back Johnson asked sunak to overrule HOLAC on some of his nominations which were rejected… also because you can’t be in the commons and lords at the same time that if he didn’t do that then to promise that they would get their peerage later as to not force a by election now That the reason the two mps suddenly resigned | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand people like tk jump to conclusions in here. But let's be real about this. No ones seen the honours list. No ones seen the correspondence ebetween sunak and Johnson. What exactly do people believe bojo has done here? All we.have is sunak saying Boris asked me to do something I wasn't prepare to do. Even in the media they can't decide what this is. Some suggest bojo asked subak to override, other say he asked him to re apply the list. The media can't even get it's own story straight on the apparent task being asked. That is a lot of defending of boris there….so let’s take them in order Sunak and the House of Lords committee would have seen the list No one has seen the correspondence… but the fact that sunak took notes knew that he thought enough about Johnson that it would be wise to cover his own back Johnson asked sunak to overrule HOLAC on some of his nominations which were rejected… also because you can’t be in the commons and lords at the same time that if he didn’t do that then to promise that they would get their peerage later as to not force a by election now That the reason the two mps suddenly resigned " Bojo asked sunak to overrule the Lords. I assume you have the evidence of this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand people like tk jump to conclusions in here. But let's be real about this. No ones seen the honours list. No ones seen the correspondence ebetween sunak and Johnson. What exactly do people believe bojo has done here? All we.have is sunak saying Boris asked me to do something I wasn't prepare to do. Even in the media they can't decide what this is. Some suggest bojo asked subak to override, other say he asked him to re apply the list. The media can't even get it's own story straight on the apparent task being asked. That is a lot of defending of boris there….so let’s take them in order Sunak and the House of Lords committee would have seen the list No one has seen the correspondence… but the fact that sunak took notes knew that he thought enough about Johnson that it would be wise to cover his own back Johnson asked sunak to overrule HOLAC on some of his nominations which were rejected… also because you can’t be in the commons and lords at the same time that if he didn’t do that then to promise that they would get their peerage later as to not force a by election now That the reason the two mps suddenly resigned Bojo asked sunak to overrule the Lords. I assume you have the evidence of this? " Okay… let’s put it like this…. Sunak would have known that some of Johnson picks for honours would have been rejected… we know that HOLAC rejected 8 of them 2 of those 8 suddenly resign as mps…. Coincidence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand people like tk jump to conclusions in here. But let's be real about this. No ones seen the honours list. No ones seen the correspondence ebetween sunak and Johnson. What exactly do people believe bojo has done here? All we.have is sunak saying Boris asked me to do something I wasn't prepare to do. Even in the media they can't decide what this is. Some suggest bojo asked subak to override, other say he asked him to re apply the list. The media can't even get it's own story straight on the apparent task being asked. That is a lot of defending of boris there….so let’s take them in order Sunak and the House of Lords committee would have seen the list No one has seen the correspondence… but the fact that sunak took notes knew that he thought enough about Johnson that it would be wise to cover his own back Johnson asked sunak to overrule HOLAC on some of his nominations which were rejected… also because you can’t be in the commons and lords at the same time that if he didn’t do that then to promise that they would get their peerage later as to not force a by election now That the reason the two mps suddenly resigned Bojo asked sunak to overrule the Lords. I assume you have the evidence of this? Okay… let’s put it like this…. Sunak would have known that some of Johnson picks for honours would have been rejected… we know that HOLAC rejected 8 of them 2 of those 8 suddenly resign as mps…. Coincidence? " Again wheres the shits creek and wheres the evidence Johnson asked him to override the committee. Just 1 link. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
"fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek. Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain? Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there. "OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there.
OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence "Boris is up shit creek | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there.
OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence
Boris is up shit creek "Where he belongs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there.
OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence
Boris is up shit creek
Where he belongs "My mistake , Alexander is up shit creek | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there.
OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence "not really, I'm retracting because the metaphor I was trying the communicate and the metaphor you are receiving aren't the same. I don't know whether everyone else is also receiving a different message than I intended, but that's by the by. It's clearly a distraction for this thread. I never thought Boris was in trouble. Lets move on.
I stand by my view that I believe he told Nadine she was on the list. And so what he said to her, and what transpired was different.
I suspect, but can't evidence, he asked Sunak to do something to help rectify this disconnect.
For me this feels like a likely set of events that would produce the various statements made across the board. I wish there was more transparency about what happened. Unfortunately that's not the policical world we live in.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there.
OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence not really, I'm retracting because the metaphor I was trying the communicate and the metaphor you are receiving aren't the same. I don't know whether everyone else is also receiving a different message than I intended, but that's by the by. It's clearly a distraction for this thread. I never thought Boris was in trouble.
Lets move on.
I stand by my view that I believe he told Nadine she was on the list. And so what he said to her, and what transpired was different.
I suspect, but can't evidence, he asked Sunak to do something to help rectify this disconnect.
For me this feels like a likely set of events that would produce the various statements made across the board. I wish there was more transparency about what happened. Unfortunately that's not the policical world we live in.
"Just so we are clear then. You've boe vidence he asked sunak anything underhand. Just an assumption. And you are going from. "his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised" To "I believe he told Nadine she was on the lis" These are very different sentences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there.
OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence "Boris will be up shit creek because he has made the Conservative party look disunited and even less able to govern than previously. He is likely to now lose support amongst the party membership who are historically unforgiving of this behaviour. He is likely to be prevented from running as a Conservative parliamentary candidate. Opinion not requiring "evidence". It's politics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage…" One rumour is she is one of his “secret” offspring. Another is even leas savoury and involves her being young, blonde, and female like Carrie and Jennifer! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… One rumour is she is one of his “secret” offspring. Another is even leas savoury and involves her being young, blonde, and female like Carrie and Jennifer!" Yep. That’s what I’ve just heard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage…" Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage…" It’s no wonder why Nads is so pissed off | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both and neither. Imo sunak neither directly threw Boris into shit creek (Boris found his own way there as usual) but didn't offer him a paddle either. I can see Boris putting this firmly at sunaks door as that feels on character. That doesnt make it so. It's less blue on blue crime, more a lack of blue on blue bodyguarding. Can you explain why you think boris is in shit creek over this? Probably because he has impugned Parliament in his criticism of the (Tory majority) Committee. It's likely to bar him from running for Parliament again within the Conservative party. He will either need to stage an internal coup (again) or start a new party. How did Boris find his way into the apparent creek over the honours? It's ok to say you don't have the answer. You can leave it to hovisshit creek is an exaggeration for for the purposes of the picture I was painting. He's not on trouble, but has created an unintended situation (his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised). That problem is his creation. Sunak is not offering him a way out. Why is it a problem? How could he promise them a HoL gig if he didn't decide it? I dont think Boris wants a way out. Have you got proof who he promised a gig to and how he promised? Or how he asked sunak for a way out?if he didn't decide what ? His list ? Nadine seems to believe she was on the list and that Boris had told her this. Her article in the DM says this. It reads like she thought she was in until the very last minute. Sunak says Boris asked him to do something he wasn't prepared to do. That was said on camera. Do I have more details, no. Not sure what you expect me to pull out. Through committee approves people. The PM can override the committee. Sunak said boris said something. But we have no idea what. So I'm not sure why boris is up.shits creek unless sunak says what as there are multiple versions of what was apparently asked. Let's start atleast trying with the facts here people. Do.i jabe more details...no That about sums this thread up. No one knkw what boris asked. No one knows if blris actually asked it No one k ow.who was o the list. But apparently blris is up shits creek I've already said that I don't think Boris was up shit creek, but using that saying just to paint a picture of the what may be going on with Boris and Sunaks verison of events.
So where we are is either Boris did or don't tell Nadine, so either she was on the list, or she's lying that Boris told her . Or Boris was lying that she was on the list.
And either Boris asked something of Sunak, or Sunak is lying.
Do you agree both this statements are correct given what we do know?
So boris isn't up shits creek then?
Not sure why he would be if he simply asked sunak to re submit. It'd not really asking him to do something like overrule.
If he did ask him to overrule. Then sunam can say that that is something he wouldn't do.
Sunak though didn't have to say anything.
Boris may have told nadine she was on tbe list. But wheres the promise sorry?
I'm not entirely sure what the shits creek thing is
Feel free to retract it.
fml, have I not explained enough times that I was using it for the metaphor of not being given a way out of a situation. If you need it spelled out, ingereby formally retract the statement and hereby confirm that I don not believe he is on shit creek.
Do you agree with my two statements of what is in the public domain?
Note neither statement have the word promise, not over rule. He good if we can find some common ground that we agree on, and work from there.
OK good. You retract your metaphor then as you have no evidence not really, I'm retracting because the metaphor I was trying the communicate and the metaphor you are receiving aren't the same. I don't know whether everyone else is also receiving a different message than I intended, but that's by the by. It's clearly a distraction for this thread. I never thought Boris was in trouble.
Lets move on.
I stand by my view that I believe he told Nadine she was on the list. And so what he said to her, and what transpired was different.
I suspect, but can't evidence, he asked Sunak to do something to help rectify this disconnect.
For me this feels like a likely set of events that would produce the various statements made across the board. I wish there was more transparency about what happened. Unfortunately that's not the policical world we live in.
Just so we are clear then.
You've boe vidence he asked sunak anything underhand. Just an assumption.
And you are going from.
"his MP friends not getting the HoL gig he'd promised"
To "I believe he told Nadine she was on the lis"
These are very different sentences."not sure i have ever suggested he asked for anything underhand. I said he asked for help Sunak didn't give. I still suspect that Nadine was told she will be on the list before the list was submitted. After all, it wasn't a shock. But no, I can't evidence that view. It was a bit of creative language because this is a swingers forum, not Hansard. In the same way I couldn't evidence the sinister forces that prevented Nadine getting her peerage. I do wonder what happened for her to not get her peerage. I can't tell if this should have been a suprise or not ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate "Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling? If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… One rumour is she is one of his “secret” offspring. Another is even leas savoury and involves her being young, blonde, and female like Carrie and Jennifer!" the former was confirmed by a wiki edit 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate "To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!"I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… One rumour is she is one of his “secret” offspring. Another is even leas savoury and involves her being young, blonde, and female like Carrie and Jennifer!the former was confirmed by a wiki edit
"Must be true if it is on Wilipedia!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… One rumour is she is one of his “secret” offspring. Another is even leas savoury and involves her being young, blonde, and female like Carrie and Jennifer!the former was confirmed by a wiki edit
"I believe her parentage is known. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here "Come on now, we have already established you need over 10k followers to be significant. Chaps like Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah are below that so clearly insignificant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!"Of course it's possible. Believable? It's also possible that I'm the pope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling?
If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open. "I didn't call you a liar, I question whether its believable. Those are 2 different things | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
Of course it's possible. Believable? It's also possible that I'm the pope "No it isn’t. The pope is celibate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
Of course it's possible. Believable? It's also possible that I'm the pope
No it isn’t. The pope is celibate "Only the wife plays. Nanananana | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling?
If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open.
I didn't call you a liar, I question whether its believable. Those are 2 different things"You’re free to believe what you like. Not sure what reason I’ve got to lie about my family nor my friend-circle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling?
If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open.
I didn't call you a liar, I question whether its believable. Those are 2 different things
You’re free to believe what you like. Not sure what reason I’ve got to lie about my family nor my friend-circle."I know I'm free to believe what I want, I'm a big boy. What reason would you have to lie? You're on a debating forum and trying to 'gain an edge', come on, even you know what reason you would have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling?
If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open.
I didn't call you a liar, I question whether its believable. Those are 2 different things"Yet you have believed me and my background (which is true BTW) so why not this chap? My mother was very good friends with Mary Millington (my swinging was foregone conclusion) so weird things are possible! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here
Come on now, we have already established you need over 10k followers to be significant. Chaps like Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah are below that so clearly insignificant. "Said twitter following is actually where I made a few contacts in and around politics. Very handy at times
Also grandad was the leader of the local council, but I’m sure I’ll get called a liar for that as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
Of course it's possible. Believable? It's also possible that I'm the pope
No it isn’t. The pope is celibate
Only the wife plays. Nanananana "Is she a Popette | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling?
If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open.
I didn't call you a liar, I question whether its believable. Those are 2 different things
Yet you have believed me and my background (which is true BTW) so why not this chap?
My mother was very good friends with Mary Millington (my swinging was foregone conclusion) so weird things are possible! "You have never spoken of your background to 'give your points credence'. This chap I personally think is full of hot air living in a utopian world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here
Come on now, we have already established you need over 10k followers to be significant. Chaps like Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah are below that so clearly insignificant.
Said twitter following is actually where I made a few contacts in and around politics. Very handy at times
Also grandad was the leader of the local council, but I’m sure I’ll get called a liar for that as well."I'd expect you to know significantly more than you show considering your 'background'. Hence, I feel its questionable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling?
If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open.
I didn't call you a liar, I question whether its believable. Those are 2 different things
Yet you have believed me and my background (which is true BTW) so why not this chap?
My mother was very good friends with Mary Millington (my swinging was foregone conclusion) so weird things are possible!
You have never spoken of your background to 'give your points credence'. This chap I personally think is full of hot air living in a utopian world."I have been explicit about my business experience (and education) and implied my connections into central govt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here
Come on now, we have already established you need over 10k followers to be significant. Chaps like Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah are below that so clearly insignificant.
Said twitter following is actually where I made a few contacts in and around politics. Very handy at times
Also grandad was the leader of the local council, but I’m sure I’ll get called a liar for that as well.
I'd expect you to know significantly more than you show considering your 'background'. Hence, I feel its questionable."Ah. Because you don’t agree with the points I make, you think I know less than I do, therefor you question my story. Gotcha. (My knowledge and contacts are why I mentioned Rosindell and François the other day, to gauge a response) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
Is it unbelievable to you that a 43 year old from Essex, working in London may have a journalist friend or a smart sibling?
If you want to call me a liar go right ahead and do it in the open.
I didn't call you a liar, I question whether its believable. Those are 2 different things
Yet you have believed me and my background (which is true BTW) so why not this chap?
My mother was very good friends with Mary Millington (my swinging was foregone conclusion) so weird things are possible!
You have never spoken of your background to 'give your points credence'. This chap I personally think is full of hot air living in a utopian world.
I have been explicit about my business experience (and education) and implied my connections into central govt."Yes but I don't recall doing that 2 days on the trot to prove your point. I believe when you have said those things you've backed up with actual knowledge. A bit like I fully believe Jackal (where is he) is in the distribution business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here
Come on now, we have already established you need over 10k followers to be significant. Chaps like Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah are below that so clearly insignificant.
Said twitter following is actually where I made a few contacts in and around politics. Very handy at times
Also grandad was the leader of the local council, but I’m sure I’ll get called a liar for that as well.
I'd expect you to know significantly more than you show considering your 'background'. Hence, I feel its questionable.
Ah. Because you don’t agree with the points I make, you think I know less than I do, therefor you question my story.
Gotcha.
(My knowledge and contacts are why I mentioned Rosindell and François the other day, to gauge a response)"It's got nothing to do with 'not agreeing'. You mentioned those Tory MPs to flip the subject but hey, I've told you to start a thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here
Come on now, we have already established you need over 10k followers to be significant. Chaps like Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah are below that so clearly insignificant. "Awww still burns sore that they know more about things than you doesn't it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone " You copy all your economic ‘information’ from a nameless fictional account on Twitter | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone " Do you know what happens to journalists if they reveal their sources? Or if it comes out that they’ve been giving info around? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just had a WhatsApp from a friend in Westminster circles. It seems that some people *do* know why Charlotte Owen got her peerage… Your brother is an expert in topical diseases. You have friends in Westminster circles. You're fucking wasted here mate
To be fair (your fav saying lately) it is possible. I mean we have two other people on here who are experts in EVERYTHING EVER!
I haven’t even mentioned the twitter following I had, because I didn’t want to shame one of the Billy big-bollocks on here
Come on now, we have already established you need over 10k followers to be significant. Chaps like Gully Foyle and Dilip Shah are below that so clearly insignificant.
Awww still burns sore that they know more about things than you doesn't it.
"Not really no just joshing with you. Plenty of people know more about most things than me. But if it make you feel better sure fill your boots. It seemed to trigger you though? Need to lighten up Morely and laugh at yourself more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone " Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone You copy all your economic ‘information’ from a nameless fictional account on Twitter "Nope. I get it from.Anderw Neil, Julian jessop , Catherine mcbride, tim goldfinch, Andrew sentance, dilip shah, Faisal Islam, John hearn Michael Henson. Shaun Richards. But you make up what you want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Do you know what happens to journalists if they reveal their sources? Or if it comes out that they’ve been giving info around? " You're a journalist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone You copy all your economic ‘information’ from a nameless fictional account on Twitter Nope.
I get it from.Anderw Neil, Julian jessop , Catherine mcbride, tim goldfinch, Andrew sentance, dilip shah, Faisal Islam, John hearn Michael Henson. Shaun Richards.
But you make up what you want."But not Gully Foyle? Hmmmm | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right?" So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone You copy all your economic ‘information’ from a nameless fictional account on Twitter Nope.
I get it from.Anderw Neil, Julian jessop , Catherine mcbride, tim goldfinch, Andrew sentance, dilip shah, Faisal Islam, John hearn Michael Henson. Shaun Richards.
But you make up what you want.
But not Gully Foyle? Hmmmm"Not particularly for economics no. He has no economic background | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone You copy all your economic ‘information’ from a nameless fictional account on Twitter Nope.
I get it from.Anderw Neil, Julian jessop , Catherine mcbride, tim goldfinch, Andrew sentance, dilip shah, Faisal Islam, John hearn Michael Henson. Shaun Richards.
But you make up what you want."Gullyfoyle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Do you know what happens to journalists if they reveal their sources? Or if it comes out that they’ve been giving info around? You're a journalist?" If he's a journalist that would say a lot | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it." Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it." *Person on here doesn’t who give a toss whether he’s believed or not, because he knows he’s telling the truth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it." What are Dillip Shahs credentials, he only has 1,000 followers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I?" Nope. Re read. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read." But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read." Ok so we have to take you seriously because you follow Dilip Shah? You never admit to just copying what he says, you appear to try and pass it off as your own thinking. Maybe you beed to start crediting him? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which is it above. Because its great watching younpaint yourself in a trap " You’re posts on here or more or less identical to Gully’s, you’re either copying him or he is copying you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists"" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. Ok so we have to take you seriously because you follow Dilip Shah? You never admit to just copying what he says, you appear to try and pass it off as your own thinking. Maybe you beed to start crediting him?" Where have I said I copy him and post it on here. How's your catch 22 situation coming along | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter." Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. Ok so we have to take you seriously because you follow Dilip Shah? You never admit to just copying what he says, you appear to try and pass it off as your own thinking. Maybe you beed to start crediting him? Where have I said I copy him and post it on here. How's your catch 22 situation coming along " You haven’t said that you copy him. That’s the point. You do copy him and then try to pass it off as your own thinking. As I said, you should credit him the we know where the words are coming from. It’s ok to admit not being an expert and standing on the shoulders of others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. Ok so we have to take you seriously because you follow Dilip Shah? You never admit to just copying what he says, you appear to try and pass it off as your own thinking. Maybe you beed to start crediting him? Where have I said I copy him and post it on here. How's your catch 22 situation coming along You haven’t said that you copy him. That’s the point. You do copy him and then try to pass it off as your own thinking. As I said, you should credit him the we know where the words are coming from. It’s ok to admit not being an expert and standing on the shoulders of others." Please point out where you think I have copied dilip in anything I've said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it." I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. " Any 1 post where I have copied him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him." Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tick tock" Bit needy and demanding. This is not my only focus I do have a life! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. " You're making an accusation. Tick tock. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tick tock Bit needy and demanding. This is not my only focus I do have a life!" You have made an accusation about me I expect proof. You can retract that accusation. And realise that reading a link on some ones tweet and going to the statistical page is different from copy pasting the tweet. Fr example. I listen to John hearn on economics and money supply. But we disagree vehemently on crypto currency. But your rebuttal to anything on crypto would be " you just copy past John hearn because you follow him" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. " You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The replies have gone very quiet all of a sudden. Almost like you have nothing . Because I don't copy paste dilip. You seem to be of the thinking that listening to people like John hearn give lectures on Austrian economics is akin to copying what they say. It's not. But I'd rather listen to soe one like shau Richards who worked flr.desutche bank for 15 in German bonds and advises the uk stats authority on how to correctly use numbers than a daily mirror journalist on a headline. But hey, that's me. If seeing a tweet from Shaun about the ONS and its gdp measurements means I go off and read the ONS breakdown and effect of changes to gdp for 6 hours means I copied a shaun retweet in your world. So be it. Pretty pathetic. " Just credit Shaun then. That will stop the bickering with folks like Easy as the provenance of your post will be known. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless." So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The replies have gone very quiet all of a sudden. Almost like you have nothing . Because I don't copy paste dilip. You seem to be of the thinking that listening to people like John hearn give lectures on Austrian economics is akin to copying what they say. It's not. But I'd rather listen to soe one like shau Richards who worked flr.desutche bank for 15 in German bonds and advises the uk stats authority on how to correctly use numbers than a daily mirror journalist on a headline. But hey, that's me. If seeing a tweet from Shaun about the ONS and its gdp measurements means I go off and read the ONS breakdown and effect of changes to gdp for 6 hours means I copied a shaun retweet in your world. So be it. Pretty pathetic. Just credit Shaun then. That will stop the bickering with folks like Easy as the provenance of your post will be known." Why would I credit shaun .he literally retweeted a link. I read the ONS breakdown  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tick tock Bit needy and demanding. This is not my only focus I do have a life! You have made an accusation about me I expect proof. You can retract that accusation. And realise that reading a link on some ones tweet and going to the statistical page is different from copy pasting the tweet. Fr example. I listen to John hearn on economics and money supply. But we disagree vehemently on crypto currency. But your rebuttal to anything on crypto would be " you just copy past John hearn because you follow him" " I have no idea if you copy John Hearn but if you do best to credit him. It’s not “as you follow him” it’s posting here without referencing who you are paraphrasing (or copying). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tick tock Bit needy and demanding. This is not my only focus I do have a life! You have made an accusation about me I expect proof. You can retract that accusation. And realise that reading a link on some ones tweet and going to the statistical page is different from copy pasting the tweet. Fr example. I listen to John hearn on economics and money supply. But we disagree vehemently on crypto currency. But your rebuttal to anything on crypto would be " you just copy past John hearn because you follow him" I have no idea if you copy John Hearn but if you do best to credit him. It’s not “as you follow him” it’s posting here without referencing who you are paraphrasing (or copying)." Oh so if John references ons. Is it John or the ons who I should refence in future? When some one like _asyuk posts about elective vehicle batteries. Does he need to post who he's parroting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But like I say You've painted yourself into a catch 22 now. Because you've put yourself in a corner where I listen to bond traders, I listen to experts who advise uk stats authorities. I listen to economics lecturers. And you disagree with my output. Which is driven by their lectures, books, articles. So you are I turn disagreeing with economic experts and actual financial institutio traders when you disagree with the " copy paster" So on tbe one hand I'm a fool who can only copy paste, on the other hand , I am copy pasting people who know infinitely more ona subject than you and others I here "I’m starting to sound like you but once again show me where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics. In fact there have been posts where I have actually credited your knowledge on economic type topics. I have not said you don’t know stuff. I am saying you pass off your posts as your own thinking when that isn’t always the case. Just credit and that will stop the bickering with the likes of Easy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But like I say You've painted yourself into a catch 22 now. Because you've put yourself in a corner where I listen to bond traders, I listen to experts who advise uk stats authorities. I listen to economics lecturers. And you disagree with my output. Which is driven by their lectures, books, articles. So you are I turn disagreeing with economic experts and actual financial institutio traders when you disagree with the " copy paster" So on tbe one hand I'm a fool who can only copy paste, on the other hand , I am copy pasting people who know infinitely more ona subject than you and others I here
I’m starting to sound like you but once again show me where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics. In fact there have been posts where I have actually credited your knowledge on economic type topics. I have not said you don’t know stuff. I am saying you pass off your posts as your own thinking when that isn’t always the case. Just credit and that will stop the bickering with the likes of Easy."So all people must credit their posts now? Where they got their information from? Will you ask easy to credit where he got his information on car battery's from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll take it you rescinded your claim about my posts sounding like dilips. Because I've never opted a post from him. Because you've provided no evidence. " Why does someone need to provide evidence for saying person x posts read like person y's posts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll take it you rescinded your claim about my posts sounding like dilips. Because I've never opted a post from him. Because you've provided no evidence. " The majority of your posts (especially on the Australian /NZ trade deal) are almost identical to GullyFoyle , nothing to be ashamed off if you admire him so much | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less " A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But like I say You've painted yourself into a catch 22 now. Because you've put yourself in a corner where I listen to bond traders, I listen to experts who advise uk stats authorities. I listen to economics lecturers. And you disagree with my output. Which is driven by their lectures, books, articles. So you are I turn disagreeing with economic experts and actual financial institutio traders when you disagree with the " copy paster" So on tbe one hand I'm a fool who can only copy paste, on the other hand , I am copy pasting people who know infinitely more ona subject than you and others I here
I’m starting to sound like you but once again show me where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics. In fact there have been posts where I have actually credited your knowledge on economic type topics. I have not said you don’t know stuff. I am saying you pass off your posts as your own thinking when that isn’t always the case. Just credit and that will stop the bickering with the likes of Easy.""Some significant changes here. Again think they underestimate uk over estimate Germany. France may struggle with the strikes. Uk may pick up considerably if equivalence granted on completely of Windsor framework. RSA...quite the difference. How did they get it so wrong? " You are wasted on here. Those accountancy qualifications could be put to better use explaining to the IMF, OBR, BoE etc how they are all wrong and show them what they need to do to get things right." Here's you mocking. There see evidence wasn't hard to find. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it?" It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock" What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? " Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity." Oh wow. It's serious then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock" Next time you do it I will point it out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity. Oh wow. It's serious then." Posters like too hot and fabtastic lost my respect quite some time ago based knt he lies they tell and misinformation they spread. Birldn has it currently. Hovis definitely hs my respect as some one that questions things and asks for further information including dms I have debated on several point with discretion. Some we agree some we don't but they are certainly read up. Some people simply dip out of discussions when they know they are wrong. For example me and easy discussed the impact assessment of cptpp. When I highlighted they were reading a wrong area. They didn't admit it. They simply never came back on the thread. I see that as pathetic and child like. I was wrong on an ssumption here about passports I held my hands up and said I had not dug deeper into the e.u commission website.( my own fault). If people wish to accuse others of doing something. They had better have proof. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock Next time you do it I will point it out "OK. I think we are in for a very very very long wait. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity." PMSL, it’s amazing how similar you are to Gully, he behaves exactly like this when any one questions him | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity. Oh wow. It's serious then. Posters like too hot and fabtastic lost my respect quite some time ago based knt he lies they tell and misinformation they spread. Birldn has it currently. Hovis definitely hs my respect as some one that questions things and asks for further information including dms I have debated on several point with discretion. Some we agree some we don't but they are certainly read up. Some people simply dip out of discussions when they know they are wrong. For example me and easy discussed the impact assessment of cptpp. When I highlighted they were reading a wrong area. They didn't admit it. They simply never came back on the thread. I see that as pathetic and child like. I was wrong on an ssumption here about passports I held my hands up and said I had not dug deeper into the e.u commission website.( my own fault). If people wish to accuse others of doing something. They had better have proof. " You don't like lies and misinformation? Wait til we tell you about the tories and brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity." I don’t think many people are that bothered. The constant bickering probably bores the tits off them. I believe you are copying (and often paraphrasing) others. Next time I spot it I will point it out. I also suggested you start crediting when you do this and that will (in theory) stop some of the bickering between you and other folks like Easy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity. I don’t think many people are that bothered. The constant bickering probably bores the tits off them. I believe you are copying (and often paraphrasing) others. Next time I spot it I will point it out. I also suggested you start crediting when you do this and that will (in theory) stop some of the bickering between you and other folks like Easy." I dont paraphrase though. I see a tweet I click on the link to ons. I read ons article. I post my thoughts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Morleymam,it,s obvious the Tories can do no wrong,why is this?" Oh no they can. I listed several things they got very wrong in another thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock Next time you do it I will point it out
OK. I think we are in for a very very very long wait. "That’s good then because while I do enjoy winding you up (because you appear to take yourself too seriously) I have not actually questioned your economic knowledge. I freely admit you know more than me in that space. That quote you put in about me saying you are wasted was a joke! If you can’t take a joke that is on you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Morleymam,it,s obvious the Tories can do no wrong,why is this? Oh no they can. I listed several things they got very wrong in another thread. " You are a Truss and Johnson supporter. You dislike Sunak. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock Next time you do it I will point it out
OK. I think we are in for a very very very long wait.
That’s good then because while I do enjoy winding you up (because you appear to take yourself too seriously) I have not actually questioned your economic knowledge. I freely admit you know more than me in that space. That quote you put in about me saying you are wasted was a joke! If you can’t take a joke that is on you."If you feel you need to hide mocking as having a joke. Then I'd stop. It's not a good look. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Morleymam,it,s obvious the Tories can do no wrong,why is this? Oh no they can. I listed several things they got very wrong in another thread. You are a Truss and Johnson supporter. You dislike Sunak." The things I listed are from bojos time in charge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock Next time you do it I will point it out
OK. I think we are in for a very very very long wait.
That’s good then because while I do enjoy winding you up (because you appear to take yourself too seriously) I have not actually questioned your economic knowledge. I freely admit you know more than me in that space. That quote you put in about me saying you are wasted was a joke! If you can’t take a joke that is on you.
If you feel you need to hide mocking as having a joke. Then I'd stop.
It's not a good look."You know what... if you really honestly totally genuinely did not take that post as a joke (pub style bloke banter) and took offence, then I am happy to apologise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock Next time you do it I will point it out
OK. I think we are in for a very very very long wait.
That’s good then because while I do enjoy winding you up (because you appear to take yourself too seriously) I have not actually questioned your economic knowledge. I freely admit you know more than me in that space. That quote you put in about me saying you are wasted was a joke! If you can’t take a joke that is on you.
If you feel you need to hide mocking as having a joke. Then I'd stop.
It's not a good look.
You know what... if you really honestly totally genuinely did not take that post as a joke (pub style bloke banter) and took offence, then I am happy to apologise. "Tick tock tick tock | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity. Oh wow. It's serious then. Posters like too hot and fabtastic lost my respect quite some time ago based knt he lies they tell and misinformation they spread. Birldn has it currently. Hovis definitely hs my respect as some one that questions things and asks for further information including dms I have debated on several point with discretion. Some we agree some we don't but they are certainly read up. Some people simply dip out of discussions when they know they are wrong. For example me and easy discussed the impact assessment of cptpp. When I highlighted they were reading a wrong area. They didn't admit it. They simply never came back on the thread. I see that as pathetic and child like. I was wrong on an ssumption here about passports I held my hands up and said I had not dug deeper into the e.u commission website.( my own fault). If people wish to accuse others of doing something. They had better have proof. " Your posts are all about your ego and not about the topic. That becomes apparent the more you accuse others of behaving in the way that you regularly do. Taking the CPTPP "discussion" as an example, you began with your "assessment" which contradicts pretty much every other organisation and individual expert except a very small number of hyper-partisan Brexit/free-marketeers. You then insisted that you were right based on an assertion of "dynamic" figures that you could not provide. You then moved onto multiple details to try and "win" on. I exactly quoted the words that underlined the points that I made on one of them. You then tried to bend reality with a reinterpretation of that detail. This was followed by spamming out the thread with multiple short posts and claiming victory now by claiming that I "never came back". I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing. Your latest "tactic" is to just constantly repeat that you proved someone is wrong when you have done nothing of the sort. You appear to repeat a positions that ignore basic economic principles and are unable to explain how they defy what everyone else who does it as a job seems to think. So, what you believe about me doesn't bother me one jot. I have a lot more time for actual experts. All I do is set your "opinions" against theirs. It is all a lot easier if you share who the source of your opinion is. It saves having to work out what the economic argument actually is if it is available directly rather than via your interpretation of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity. Oh wow. It's serious then. Posters like too hot and fabtastic lost my respect quite some time ago based knt he lies they tell and misinformation they spread. Birldn has it currently. Hovis definitely hs my respect as some one that questions things and asks for further information including dms I have debated on several point with discretion. Some we agree some we don't but they are certainly read up. Some people simply dip out of discussions when they know they are wrong. For example me and easy discussed the impact assessment of cptpp. When I highlighted they were reading a wrong area. They didn't admit it. They simply never came back on the thread. I see that as pathetic and child like. I was wrong on an ssumption here about passports I held my hands up and said I had not dug deeper into the e.u commission website.( my own fault). If people wish to accuse others of doing something. They had better have proof. Your posts are all about your ego and not about the topic. That becomes apparent the more you accuse others of behaving in the way that you regularly do. Taking the CPTPP "discussion" as an example, you began with your "assessment" which contradicts pretty much every other organisation and individual expert except a very small number of hyper-partisan Brexit/free-marketeers. You then insisted that you were right based on an assertion of "dynamic" figures that you could not provide. You then moved onto multiple details to try and "win" on. I exactly quoted the words that underlined the points that I made on one of them. You then tried to bend reality with a reinterpretation of that detail. This was followed by spamming out the thread with multiple short posts and claiming victory now by claiming that I "never came back". I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing. Your latest "tactic" is to just constantly repeat that you proved someone is wrong when you have done nothing of the sort. You appear to repeat a positions that ignore basic economic principles and are unable to explain how they defy what everyone else who does it as a job seems to think. So, what you believe about me doesn't bother me one jot. I have a lot more time for actual experts. All I do is set your "opinions" against theirs. It is all a lot easier if you share who the source of your opinion is. It saves having to work out what the economic argument actually is if it is available directly rather than via your interpretation of it." Easy uk You got a very basic reading of the cptpp impact assessment wrong. You're still unable to admit it now. People in here didn't think there were legal routes for asylum seekers then several months after I pointed it out then began using guardian articles quoting they existed. Still no correction on their behaves though or admission. The first step to being an adult is admitting you were wrong. Sadly that escapes many on here. Who prefer to just post " but gully" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock Next time you do it I will point it out
OK. I think we are in for a very very very long wait.
That’s good then because while I do enjoy winding you up (because you appear to take yourself too seriously) I have not actually questioned your economic knowledge. I freely admit you know more than me in that space. That quote you put in about me saying you are wasted was a joke! If you can’t take a joke that is on you.
If you feel you need to hide mocking as having a joke. Then I'd stop.
It's not a good look.
You know what... if you really honestly totally genuinely did not take that post as a joke (pub style bloke banter) and took offence, then I am happy to apologise. "It's wasn't banter. It was acting facetious because of a lack of actual ability to retort. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing. Your latest "tactic" is to just constantly repeat that you proved someone is wrong when you have done nothing of the sort. You appear to repeat a positions that ignore basic economic principles and are unable to explain how they defy what everyone else who does it as a job seems to think." If only I could remember who it was that recently said "Personal abuse is the go-to position of people when their beliefs are threatened not of people who have confidence in them". I'm sure he'd be thoroughly ashamed of the stuff quoted above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing. Your latest "tactic" is to just constantly repeat that you proved someone is wrong when you have done nothing of the sort. You appear to repeat a positions that ignore basic economic principles and are unable to explain how they defy what everyone else who does it as a job seems to think. If only I could remember who it was that recently said "Personal abuse is the go-to position of people when their beliefs are threatened not of people who have confidence in them". I'm sure he'd be thoroughly ashamed of the stuff quoted above." There was no "personal abuse" here. I have not insulted him. All my description is about his actions as written, not about him personally. You are very keen to come after me on multiple threads aren't you? Gives you something to do, I guess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was no "personal abuse" here. I have not insulted him. ..." Really? You think that "I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing" isn't personal abuse, and isn't insulting? Crikey! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock What's your plan if the statement isn't retracted, Morley? Birldn will be judged as a liar by me and others I the forum will see them for tbe liar they are. Or they can be an adult and retract their statement and people will see some 1 with some actual honour and integrity. Oh wow. It's serious then. Posters like too hot and fabtastic lost my respect quite some time ago based knt he lies they tell and misinformation they spread. Birldn has it currently. Hovis definitely hs my respect as some one that questions things and asks for further information including dms I have debated on several point with discretion. Some we agree some we don't but they are certainly read up. Some people simply dip out of discussions when they know they are wrong. For example me and easy discussed the impact assessment of cptpp. When I highlighted they were reading a wrong area. They didn't admit it. They simply never came back on the thread. I see that as pathetic and child like. I was wrong on an ssumption here about passports I held my hands up and said I had not dug deeper into the e.u commission website.( my own fault). If people wish to accuse others of doing something. They had better have proof. Your posts are all about your ego and not about the topic. That becomes apparent the more you accuse others of behaving in the way that you regularly do. Taking the CPTPP "discussion" as an example, you began with your "assessment" which contradicts pretty much every other organisation and individual expert except a very small number of hyper-partisan Brexit/free-marketeers. You then insisted that you were right based on an assertion of "dynamic" figures that you could not provide. You then moved onto multiple details to try and "win" on. I exactly quoted the words that underlined the points that I made on one of them. You then tried to bend reality with a reinterpretation of that detail. This was followed by spamming out the thread with multiple short posts and claiming victory now by claiming that I "never came back". I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing. Your latest "tactic" is to just constantly repeat that you proved someone is wrong when you have done nothing of the sort. You appear to repeat a positions that ignore basic economic principles and are unable to explain how they defy what everyone else who does it as a job seems to think. So, what you believe about me doesn't bother me one jot. I have a lot more time for actual experts. All I do is set your "opinions" against theirs. It is all a lot easier if you share who the source of your opinion is. It saves having to work out what the economic argument actually is if it is available directly rather than via your interpretation of it. Easy uk You got a very basic reading of the cptpp impact assessment wrong. You're still unable to admit it now. People in here didn't think there were legal routes for asylum seekers then several months after I pointed it out then began using guardian articles quoting they existed. Still no correction on their behaves though or admission. The first step to being an adult is admitting you were wrong. Sadly that escapes many on here. Who prefer to just post " but gully" " You are correct. I have a very basic reading of the document. I read the words there rather than reinterpreting them and adding "dynamic" factors that do not exist to justify them. I have nothing to "admit" to. Repetition is not truth however hard you may try. I also feel no need to change the topic, as you do, when unable to explain why basic economics don't apply to your pronouncements. All o have is "basic" economic understanding and "basic" reading skills. Unlike you who is far more incisive than the professionals... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only I'm this forum could you get people mocking verifiable real people on twitter and their credentials for all to see. Yet believing. " my insider who works in Whitehall said this, no i can't say who it is" Truly the twilight zone Not really. People can be themselves on Twitter (though many still choose to hide behind silly fantasy novel character names) and post in a professional capacity. This is a swinger website! You do understand the difference right? So people who ffollow dilip shah who is open transparent and put himself out as hismelf. Not believable and must be mocked. People ona swinger forum witb a mate inside Whitehall must be believed...got it. Ah so you do admit with copying from others rather than original thought. Glad that’s cleared up. I have never mocked Dilip Shah have I? Nope. Re read. But you feel free to back yourself into a corner on this one. Because on the 1 hand you originally used to mock me thinking I got it from gully who yous aid got everything wrong(still waiting on those point sof Jim being wrong) But now you realise that I follow economists and bond traders. So do you think they're wrong? This is the catch 22 for you again _irldn. "Gully doesn't have an original thought everything he says is wrong." " gully just copies everything from Andrew Neil who is very clever" Now we are at. " Morley man doesn't know what he's talking about on gilts and economics " Morley man doesn't have an original thought, he only copies traders and ecpnomists" I think you are confusing me with another regular poster. Show me a thread/post where I have questioned your knowledge on gilts or economics? All I am saying is you have in the past appeared to try and pass off your posts as your own thinking when clearly it is not. Your mate Gully seems to do the same on Twitter. Where have I posted whay they've posted and passed it off as my own? I'd be interested for you to highlight it. I’d have to copy n paste loads of posts by you. It percolates throughout your posts. All you need to do is credit him (and others) so we know who you are quoting or paraphrasing. Any 1 post where I have copied him. Morley you want me to trawl thorough hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, pull out an example then cross reference with thousands of tweets on another platform. Yeah right of course I will. The raw nerve has been touched but going forward just credit brighter people than yourself. You're making an accusation. Tick tock. You have my answer. You can tick and tock all you like. I tell you what. Next time you do it (and if I spot it) I will point it out. How many threads are you arguing with different people on now? Locking horns with so many people. It is relentless. So no proof. Just vile lies. I should have expected nothing less A vile lie would be calling someone a paedo or sex crimes committer etc. Saying someone is taking other people’s ideas on economics is hardly “vile” that is a bit woke isn’t it? It's a lie. With no foundation. One which you're yet to back up. Tick tock Next time you do it I will point it out
OK. I think we are in for a very very very long wait.
That’s good then because while I do enjoy winding you up (because you appear to take yourself too seriously) I have not actually questioned your economic knowledge. I freely admit you know more than me in that space. That quote you put in about me saying you are wasted was a joke! If you can’t take a joke that is on you.
If you feel you need to hide mocking as having a joke. Then I'd stop.
It's not a good look.
You know what... if you really honestly totally genuinely did not take that post as a joke (pub style bloke banter) and took offence, then I am happy to apologise.
It's wasn't banter. It was acting facetious because of a lack of actual ability to retort.
"Ah so - you cannot graciously accept in good faith. Oh well I tried. Weird I thought only lefties were snowflakes  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So.. who are we believing.. Rishi or boris? Boris has been caught lying so many times why would anyone believe him ? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was no "personal abuse" here. I have not insulted him. ... Really? You think that "I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing" isn't personal abuse, and isn't insulting? Crikey!" No. His posts are demonstrably nonsense. Incorrect. Without merit. I am neither insulting his intelligence nor his honesty. I do question his integrity in crediting others for what he passes off as his own though. Do you have anything to contribute to the topic? I only responded initially due to being directly insulted. Why are you here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was no "personal abuse" here. I have not insulted him. ... Really? You think that "I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing" isn't personal abuse, and isn't insulting? Crikey! No. His posts are demonstrably nonsense. Incorrect. Without merit. I am neither insulting his intelligence nor his honesty. I do question his integrity in crediting others for what he passes off as his own though. Do you have anything to contribute to the topic? I only responded initially due to being directly insulted. Why are you here?" Your first post here stated probably and likely...are you blessed with a crystal ball? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was no "personal abuse" here. I have not insulted him. ... Really? You think that "I reply to the BS you post so that people don't actually think that you know what you are writing" isn't personal abuse, and isn't insulting? Crikey! No. His posts are demonstrably nonsense. Incorrect. Without merit. I am neither insulting his intelligence nor his honesty. I do question his integrity in crediting others for what he passes off as his own though. Do you have anything to contribute to the topic? I only responded initially due to being directly insulted. Why are you here? Your first post here stated probably and likely...are you blessed with a crystal ball? " No idea what that means. Again, great contribution | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So.. who are we believing.. Rishi or boris? " Boris has a trak record of lying, I believe him to be fundamentally untrustworthy. Rishi, who I believe is doing the best he can, is hamstrung by having to pander to the Tory factions within the party. Its a lose lose for all of us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So.. who are we believing.. Rishi or boris? " Neither, they are / were politicians | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
