1 minute ago, Nigel Garvie said:

You admitted it yourself, you said "Why risk a car crash". Clearly your (In my view wise) assessment of your glorious leader is that there is every chance of a car crash. Politicians generally want to be interviewed because they want to get their views across. Boris's handlers know he is a total liability.

 

Just say the words "Gutless chicken", you'll feel much better after you admit the truth (It's called Catharsis). 

Au contraire, he has nothing to gain by being interviewed by Andrew Neil, why risk it, it's just not worth it.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Au contraire, he has nothing to gain by being interviewed by Andrew Neil, why risk it, it's just not worth it.

Yes, scrutiny hurts. It's awful when a politician has no answers to pertinent questions.

Johnson, a coward, like Trump. Perhaps a bone spur was playing up and sitting in the chair opposite Andrew would have hurt.

8 minutes ago, bannork said:

Yes, scrutiny hurts. It's awful when a politician has no answers to pertinent questions.

Johnson, a coward, like Trump. Perhaps a bone spur was playing up and sitting in the chair opposite Andrew would have hurt.

You are not reading what I'm writing, the only people that appear to be hurt are people who want more stones to throw at Boris, I am truly sorry he has not given them that opportunity. But keep calling him a liar whilst making out that all the other MPs are highly virtuous is totally farcical.

Can I remind you that Boris is the most liked of all the leaders and repeatedly calling him names and making snide remarks about him will not alter that.

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

You are not reading what I'm writing, the only people that appear to be hurt are people who want more stones to throw at Boris, I am truly sorry he has not given them that opportunity. But keep calling him a liar whilst making out that all the other MPs are highly virtuous is totally farcical.

Can I remind you that Boris is the most liked of all the leaders and repeatedly calling him names and making snide remarks about him will not alter that.

The people who are hurt are the public, never mind the politicians.

He refuses to be open to scrutiny, just as when he tried to close Parliament.

A coward.

39 minutes ago, bannork said:

The people who are hurt are the public, never mind the politicians.

He refuses to be open to scrutiny, just as when he tried to close Parliament.

A coward.

It has to be said if the public were "hurt" by Boris, he would not have the support he has from them. And again words like coward and liar are totally meaningless, but I guess it gives a minority some solace.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

It has to be said if the public were "hurt" by Boris, he would not have the support he has from them. And again words like coward and liar are totally meaningless, but I guess it gives a minority some solace.

The public are hurt because Boris refuses to answer relevant questions from Andrew Neil about his past and present policies which will clearly affect the populace.

A coward.

18 minutes ago, bannork said:

The public are hurt because Boris refuses to answer relevant questions from Andrew Neil about his past and present policies which will clearly affect the populace.

A coward.

By you saying the public are hurt doesn't necessarily make it so and if Boris answered the "relevant questions" you wouldn't believe him anyway because you say he's a liar. 

It would appear that the people that constantly name call are the ones that are hurt, and if Boris was campaigning to remain within the EU many on here would be singing from a different song sheet.

 

Baiting post and replies reported and removed.

 

6 hours ago, bannork said:

The people who are hurt are the public, never mind the politicians.

He refuses to be open to scrutiny, just as when he tried to close Parliament.

A coward.

The only people ‘hurt’ are the TV polstars; other politicians; and moaning TVF Remainers. 

On 12/8/2019 at 8:54 AM, Orton Rd said:

I tend not to believe a channel that has Allah as it's logo, they are heavily biased

They sent a crew to candidates debate & Boris didn't show. His seat went to independent. Also all sorts of interesting "fringe" candidates which is so wonderfully English.

Here is a link to the Independent which reports the same story. If you do a google search, you will also see links to LA Times, BBC, etc. The fact (remember facts?) is he is a no show. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-boris-johnson-hustings-uxbridge-south-ruislip-labour-ali-milani-a9235811.html

 

A question:

 

These poll companies that now are busy with prediciting the outcome of the election;

 

in a constituency, how many more votes than Labour is needed by the Cons party in order for the

seat to be ticked of as Cons?

do they operate with a required confidence level before ticking off a seat as this or that?

 

Just viewed a Corbyn video on the news in some country or other (not UK),

 

he appeared as being in a good mood and underlined that Labour would intensify the campaign

and publish strong messages to the public,

 

why?

 

he said that they had now had confirmation from all 27 member states that the "No deal" option is off the table.

 

what a totally weird statement

there are 28 members, not 27, I assume the member he missed to mention in his count was UK

in seeking confirmation that No deal is out, UK is crucial, the 27 other members are not important

 

the 27 cannot confirm that UK will not leave without a deal

however, the 27 could confirm that UK will not leave with a deal, if that is what they want