Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@slayer wrote:
– I didnt want PB to get a knock on the door at 3am from a man wearing a surgical glove over his hand and a glint in his eye!
Ah, so you’ve met Uncle Franco “The Butcher” – one of Mrs PB’s many cousins.
Thanks Ruby. I don’t think that there’s a need to edit what WAS posted as it is (or was then at any rate) well in the public domain. Those who have read the names have read them and that cannot be undone.
However, now that it has been brought to our attention, I guess that we all have an obligation not to further repeat these names in ‘public’.
That said, I think that this only appears to apply to the mother, her (ex) husband, and her current partner (at least this month’s partner anyway). Her lodger however, HAS been named in all the mainstream Media so I presume that any ban on publicly naming him does not apply.
I see that in today’s press, our wonderful caring Government has refused to publish the outcome of the in depth investigation that they ordered to be carried out in case it prejudices any action that they MIGHT take and because it would be soooooo unfair to name any social workers involved.
Meanwhile the Socialist Republic of Haringey carries on as before. Business as usual eh?
Good point slayer. The BBC London News web page, going back to August 2007, openly named all three participants in this disgraceful affair. This page, which was available for public viewing up until this morning, has now been taken down…. presumably by the BBC.
Since the information is apparently no longer in the public domain (from this ‘respected’ news source at any rate), then we should all now refrain from naming the three persons recently found guilty of assisting in the killing of ‘Baby P’.
Problem is Bas that legislating to make illegal a legitimate political party’s views on certain subjects is the thin end of a big fat wedge,
Take your comment about the abolition of the monarchy as an example. You may well feel that this is a reasonable political aim and if you founded a political party with this as its central theme, as the law currently stands, you would be able to promote this view.
However, if enough of those who supported the continuation of the monarchy objected and had your views banned in law, you may well feel unjustly oppressed or censored. it wouldn’t alter your stated view and indeed might have the effect of inciting you to become even more extreme in your objection.
That isn’t to imply that I agree with the BNP or any of its views…. but I feel that the best way to show one’s disapproval of such a party is to ensure that they consistently fail at the ballot box.
As long as they continue to lose their deposits at elections, they will sooner or later wither and die.
I heard about this on the BBC Today programme this-morning.
@bat wrote:
Here here Chessy. I,ll help ya, no worries atall. :twisted:
I emailed my local MP a few days ago about this case and I had a really nice letter back from him today. I might send off a long rambling email to the PM next. I do good rambling emails I do. Just ask PB. :lol:God I feel sorry for your poor MP. Bat does rambling e-mails that would make your eyes water. On and on they go, paragraph after paragraph of endless rambling drivel.
Eventually she gets to the point (long after you’ve lost the will to live) which is usually something terribly important like how cold it is that morning, or her car won’t start etc etc.
At least her MP gets paid to read the stuff …………. !!!!!
Perhaps one of the better (or more extreme) example of piss poor parenting.
@pete wrote:
Is this a bare knuckle fight were talking about ? If so i’d pay bloody good money to see it
Look you can say what you like Pete … I am NOT going down to the Spinnaker Tower again. Last time I went it cost me a bloody fortune. Everything there is totally overpriced to rip off tourists (like me).
