Jump to content

JonnyF

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    17,852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by JonnyF

  1. 1 minute ago, candide said:

    It seems you are missing the fact that the protectionist racket is exactly what Trump is trying to do...:coffee1:

     

    Trump is seeking reciprocity.

     

    So for protectionist rackets like the EU, they are indeed going to feel what it's like to face trade barriers and large tariffs.

     

    Post Brexit Global Britain has received a far better deal. 

     

    What goes around comes around.

     

    Another benefit of Brexit. You're welcome. 

    • Like 1
    • Thumbs Up 1
    • Thumbs Down 1
    • Thanks 1
  2. 2 minutes ago, JAG said:

    I must confess that I am surprised, given the regularity with which you make comments upon the government of The United Kingdom, and being as how you are a British citizen (albeit one who clearly hankers after the smack of firm government as delivered by the flabby paws of a foreign head of state), that your understanding of our constitution is so limited that you think that the King has any executive powers over our borders. Frankly I doubt whether he even owns a sharpie!

     

    I must confess I am not the least surprised that you failed to realize that it was a reference to the borders of his own residences. He still seems quite keen on those, if not the ones separating us from France.

     

    It would seem he is fine with UK citizens being surrounded by illegal immigrants, as long as he does not have to be. 

     

    Ivory towers spring to mind. 

  3. 43 minutes ago, Purdey said:

    Why would the EU want economic revenge? Just don't buy American products if it upsets you.

     

    Same reason they wanted to punish Britain for Brexit.

     

    The totalitarian, deeply authoritarian protectionist racket doesn't like it when the shoe is on the other foot. It's fine for them to freeze out those who are not in "the club" but they expect everyone else to buy their stuff regardless. 

     

    Time for the spiteful little technocrats to wake up and smell the coffee. 

    • Like 2
    • Thumbs Up 2
    • Thumbs Down 5
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  4. 4 hours ago, phetphet said:

    The EU, just like the UK has let in too many illegals. The enemy within.  Changing the make up of the population and the cultural norms to suit themselves.

     

    Exactly.

     

    This is simply a case of pointing into the distance and shouting "Hey everyone, look over there. Right on the horizon. The bad guy is over there" as 4 men of fighting age and unknown background quietly move in next door. 

    • Like 1
  5. 9 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

    Understood ... in your imagination. Fact is most supported the idea of deporting the criminals, including gang members and those involved in drugs, violence. The sad way in the approach of indiscriminate sweeps has turned the majority to oppose the WAY in which trump is handling the immigration actions.

     

    All illegals are criminals by definiton.

     

    Most countries deport or jail illegals. It's perfectly normal. Obama did more than his fair share as well but Liberals like to forget that. 

    • Like 1
  6. 36 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:


    You didn't answer.

    Some of this only emerged during the investigation when the police could request CCTV from Starbucks for example. Are you suggesting the BBC had this all along but decided not to show it to protect "the Muslims"?  Are you suggesting the BBC deliberately edited the footage?

     

    Well either the police edited before they sent it to the BBC or the BBC edited it. Either way, my point is correct.

     

    The guy broke the policewoman's nose about 20 seconds before the stamping, so there was no "requesting CCTV from Starbucks" or whatever nonsense you are dreaming up. It's on the same video. 

     

    The BBC paid the son of a Hamas official to star in a video, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they edited this. But like I said, police or BBC doesn't really matter. The point stands. They have the same agenda.

    • Like 2
    • Thumbs Down 1
    • Haha 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:


    I don't know. It is always the case in breaking news items that we get an initial report that goes out, then as more information is found or comes out then a different bigger picture emerges. Some of this only emerged during the investigation when the police could request CCTV from Starbucks for example. Are you suggesting the BBC had this all along but decided not to show it to protect "the Muslims"?  Are you suggesting the BBC deliberately edited the footage - for what purpose?

    What exactly are you saying?


     

     

    It's pretty clear what I am saying.

     

    In the case of certain Demographics, the British authorities (and the BBC) have a very clear pattern of releasing only the information that suits their narrative.

     

    Whether that be the "Welsh choirboy" (who definitely wasn't a terrorist despite having Ricin and an Al Qaeda manual) who massacred the young children in Southport, or these violent headbutting nose breaking thugs who were "assaulted by police" at Manchester Airport.  

     

    Is that clear enough for you?

    • Like 2
    • Thumbs Down 1
  8. 20 minutes ago, madone said:

    John, john, john, I realize this is important to you, but the Trump visit has sweet fark all to do with the article you just posted. 

     

    Mahdone, Mahdone, Madhone.

     

    I can assue you that securing borders/illegal immigration is very much a major geopolitical and economic concern.

     

    7 hours ago, webfact said:

    The meeting underscores an ongoing effort to nurture the "special relationship" between the UK and the US, focusing on major geopolitical and economic concerns.

     

     

    • Haha 1
  9. 13 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

    "The BBC said the programme should not have been signed off, and it was taking appropriate action on accountability."

     

    "Appropriate action"? 

     

    What will that be I wonder? A mealy mouthed "apology" on some sub forum of it's website? A short paragraph in it's "fact checking" section?

     

    Then Kefirs donned and off to the pub for a jolly good laugh about it all... 

    • Like 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, madone said:

    What does it have to do with the story? Nothing, that's what.

    it's a wild hair up your ass and no one else's.

    And what does "remove his own borders and take his fair share" even mean FFS?

     

    Please don't answer that, it was rhetorical.

      

     

    You seem somewhat confused. Clearly keeping up with current events isn't really your thing. Allow me to assist. 

     

    https://www.politico.eu/article/king-charles-unwise-to-raise-borders-at-macron-state-banquet-says-reform-deputy-leader/

     

    What does it have to do with the story?

     

    7 hours ago, webfact said:

    The meeting underscores an ongoing effort to nurture the "special relationship" between the UK and the US, focusing on major geopolitical and economic concerns.

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Thumbs Down 1
    • Thanks 1
  11. 2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:


    Ah yeah, "MSM conspiracy". Usual dribble. Got it.

     

    What's your theory why the footage of the violent attacks by Muhammad and Mohammed was not released?

     

    They lost the CCTV footage?

     

    They didn't notice the initial headbutt in Starbucks or the policewoman getting her nose broken?

     

    They sent it to the wrong email address?

     

    Let's hear it...

     

     

  12. 1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:


    Everyone was focused on that line at the beginning because the footage of the police violence was the only one anyone had seen and complaints had been lodged so needed to be investigated. It was (rightfully) investigated, and then complaints were (rightfully) dismissed once all the evidence came in. And then the perpetrators were (rightfully) charged and will hopefully (rightfully) do serious jail time.

    What's your problem with that? 

     

    Why do you think that was the only footage that was seen? Why were the 2 initial attacks by Mohammed and Muhammad not shown, but the police response to that violence was?

     

    Answers on a postcard... 😄

×
×
  • Create New...