Doctors expensive

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You need to look up the definition of what constitutes a lie.

 

 

Ah, the George Costanza philosophy. 😆

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Lets see your evidence Brian.

Read my post. You've resorted to dishonest debating. I don't stoop that low. I will leave that to you. Chomp.

Edited 2 hours ago by Bkk Brian

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Ah, the George Costanza philosophy. 😆

 

 

Ah a meme.

 

Here let me help you out:

 

lie

: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Read my post. You've resorted to dishonest debating. I don't stoop that low. I will leave that to you. Chomp.

Well you made an assertion and get all defensive when asked for evidence to back it up.

 

That's low enough I think.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Ah a meme.

 

Here let me help you out:

 

 

lie

: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive

 

Like I said, either you believed the lies you were told and spread them or pretended to believe the lies and spread them.

 

I suspect you knew they were lies, but even if you didn't know, you spread them anyway.

 

That's what's known as spreading mis-information. 

 

I'd just apologize and move on if I were you, but then if I were you the lies would not have been spread in the first place. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

Like I said, either you believed the lies you were told and spread them or pretended to believe the lies and spread them.

 

I suspect you knew they were lies, but even if you didn't know, you spread them anyway.

 

That's what's known as spreading mis-information. 

 

I'd just apologize and move on if I were you, but then if I were you the lies would not have been spread in the first place. 

But you haven’t demonstrated they were lies.

 

And now you bang on about what you suspect.

 

Evidence not being your strong point.

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Read my post. You've resorted to dishonest debating. I don't stoop that low. I will leave that to you. Chomp.

 

Resorted to dishonest debating? Bit of an understatement Brian...

 

That's their whole raison d'etre on this forum. It's literally "what they do". 

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

But you haven’t demonstrated they were lies.

 

And now you bang on about what you suspect.

 

Evidence not being your strong point.

 

Of course they were lies. It was claimed there were no links to Islam when there clearly was. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Of course they were lies. It was claimed there were no links to Islam when there clearly was. 

 

 

Again, I refer you to the definition of a lie.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Resorted to dishonest debating? Bit of an understatement Brian...

 

That's their whole raison d'etre on this forum. It's literally "what they do". 

Dishonest debating like making accusations but providing no evidence.

 

Or as in calling people liars without evidence of lying.

 

?

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, I refer you to the definition of a lie.

 

 

The government knew there were links to Islam and claimed there was not. That is a lie.

 

Then you spread that lie.

 

It is what it is. 

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well you made an assertion and get all defensive when asked for evidence to back it up.

 

That's low enough I think.

There is no need for me back up anything in the assertions I made in this post, hence why you are being dishonest in your debating and continue to be

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Resorted to dishonest debating? Bit of an understatement Brian...

 

That's their whole raison d'etre on this forum. It's literally "what they do". 

Resorted to dishonest debating? Bit of an understatement Brian...

 

Indeed

[simon43]

Chomper, give it a rest!  It gets very tedious when you keep trying to defend the indefensible.....

[Bday Prang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Maybe he realized he was banged to rights, the evidence presented in court certainly indicates that to be the case.

 

 

That's what I said in a previous post -: 

" In order to receive a reduced sentence as he knew he was <deleted>   he had no other option"

are you now agreeing with me ?  you seemed unsure initially when you replied with

"I’ve not seen that detail in the court reports, have you?"

[mdr224]

Someone be honest with me. 
 

Whats more sorry, the current state of the UK, or the fact that westerners still havent learned from the current state of the UK?

[James105]

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I see you don’t want to talk about Wayne O'Rourke anymore.

 

A person being found not guilty is not proof that the many others found guilty were not.

 

Why are you deflecting?  I provided an example case (with a BBC news link) that went to trial of a person wrongfully arrested on behalf of this tyrannical government for posting on social media who was rightly acquitted by a jury.   If he had caved into pressure the same way Wayne O'Rourke did then he would be currently spending 2+ years in jail.   

 

Peter Lynch is dead.   A grandfather with no previous convictions who pleaded guilty to "violent disorder" despite not committing any violence and for his very first offence in his 61 years was sentenced to 2 years 8 months prison.   Here is an example of other people pleading guilty of "violent disorder" who received suspended sentences and no jail time.   Can you spot the difference?

 

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, mdr224 said:

Someone be honest with me. 
 

Whats more sorry, the current state of the UK, or the fact that westerners still havent learned from the current state of the UK?

 

The latter.

 

If they were capable of learning, they would never have elected a Labour government to spread such dangerous lies to the public in order to continue their policy of rampant immigration and 2 tier justice. 

[brewsterbudgen]

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The latter.

 

If they were capable of learning, they would never have elected a Labour government to spread such dangerous lies to the public in order to continue their policy of rampant immigration and 2 tier justice. 

 

Good grief, Labour have only been in power for 4 months!  It's sickening how people are trying to make party political capital out the murder of 3 young girls. Just let the police/justice system proceed.

[James105]

7 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Good grief, Labour have only been in power for 4 months!  It's sickening how people are trying to make party political capital out the murder of 3 young girls. Just let the police/justice system proceed.

 

This was a horrific crime and the public have a right to know what the government and police are doing to protect their daughters from the very real threat of Islamic terrorism, not covering it up and spreading misinformation that it was a Christian boy from Wales who did this.   Starmer could have spent the 3 months dealing with the very real threat of Islamic terrorism rather than the imaginary threat of the "far right", but instead - being the weak, cowardly man that he is - chose to appease Islam even giving them more taxpayers money to protect the mosques even though that is where the real threat is.

 

This police/justice system let predominantly Pakistani men rape young white girls/children for many, many years before reluctantly addressing the problem after pressure from the press and certain MPs.   This is why the police/justice system cannot be trusted and left to "proceed", especially when it involves islamic terror as they are too scared to do their jobs properly and the pressure needs to be continuously applied to make sure they do so.   See Manchester airport thugs as another example of what happens when the police/justice system is left to simply "proceed" unchecked.  

[mokwit]

 

[brewsterbudgen]

26 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

This was a horrific crime and the public have a right to know what the government and police are doing to protect their daughters from the very real threat of Islamic terrorism, not covering it up and spreading misinformation that it was a Christian boy from Wales who did this.   Starmer could have spent the 3 months dealing with the very real threat of Islamic terrorism rather than the imaginary threat of the "far right", but instead - being the weak, cowardly man that he is - chose to appease Islam even giving them more taxpayers money to protect the mosques even though that is where the real threat is.

 

This police/justice system let predominantly Pakistani men rape young white girls/children for many, many years before reluctantly addressing the problem after pressure from the press and certain MPs.   This is why the police/justice system cannot be trusted and left to "proceed", especially when it involves islamic terror as they are too scared to do their jobs properly and the pressure needs to be continuously applied to make sure they do so.   See Manchester airport thugs as another example of what happens when the police/justice system is left to simply "proceed" unchecked.  

I agree it was a horrific crime.  Everything else you write is inflammatory political point scoring.  

[herfiehandbag]

It really is quite incredible, using it's literal meaning (unbelievable) that Starmer et al were unaware of this fellows Islamic terrorist leanings within a few hours. However long it took for the police to get a warrant, execute a cursory search and then another hour to make the phone calls " Prime Minister, we have found Ricin and a Jihadist terror manual, more details as soon as we have them."

 

They knew all along, they covered it up assiduously, and even more egregious they turned it to their own purposes to jail or threaten to jail their critics, in an attempt to cowe opposition to their policies, or lack of, through widespread brutal application of the Law.

 

I wonder how some of the judges, who were persuaded to apply the severest penalties possible feel know? Actually probably couldn't care less, eyes firmly fixed on the next few rungs of the Judiciary promotion ladder!

 

Being nasty on Facebook really does fade into significance when compared to a deliberately engineered government coverup of this magnitude. Unfortunately one poor sod (in so many ways) has died and many have had their lives and livelihoods destroyed.

Edited 17 minutes ago by herfiehandbag

[James105]

2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I agree it was a horrific crime.  Everything else you write is inflammatory political point scoring.  

 

So because you are unable to address any of the uncomfortable truths you resort to the vacuous phrase of "inflammatory political point scoring".