So what is the deal with Jorge's emergence as a bona fide social justice warrior on

[Monty92]

Twitter?

Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?

Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.

I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?

[Sir C]

Twitter?

Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?

Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.

I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?

Are you taking the píss? This is some sort of joke, right?

He used to openly admit his admiration of the Soviet Union, for the love of Christ!

[Burney]

Twitter?

Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?

Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.

I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?

I think he used to know he wasn't easily going to get away with that crap on here, so toned it down a wee bit. It was always implied, though.

[Monty92]

Are you taking the píss? This is some sort of joke, right?

He used to openly admit his admiration of the Soviet Union, for the love of Christ!

Ok, he was always more than a moderate lefty in terms of his *politics*, but he was also politically incorrect, not impartial to the odd jocular racial or ethnic stereotype, and didn't really strike me as the pearl clutching type at all.

[Pokster]

Twitter?

Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?

Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.

I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?

It's on twitter, so should be ignored as the only people that seem to be on twitter just post ****e for the sake of it

[Luis Anaconda]

Twitter?

Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?

Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.

I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?

Saw him call someone who described immigrants as human detritus as a racist - is that the tweet you mean? Or are there other examples. Because it would be glib to say that was something merely "remotely negative"

[Sir C]

Ok, he was always more than a moderate lefty in terms of his *politics*, but he was also politically incorrect, not impartial to the odd jocular racial or ethnic stereotype, and didn't really strike me as the pearl clutching type at all.

Perhaps so, but consider the writhing nest of lefties into which he now pukes his genocide-enabling bile; any deviation from prescribed dogma could see him ejected from the echo chamber and probably twittershamed.

They're even scared of each other, these maniacs.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Twitter?

Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?

Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.

I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?

You're just deflecting attention from your uncle Harvey

[Luis Anaconda]

Saw him call someone who described immigrants as human detritus as a racist - is that the tweet you mean? Or are there other examples. Because it would be glib to say that was something merely "remotely negative"

Not denying he is as mad as a bag of frogs though

[Burney]

Perhaps so, but consider the writhing nest of lefties into which he now pukes his genocide-enabling bile; any deviation from prescribed dogma could see him ejected from the echo chamber and probably twittershamed.

They're even scared of each other, these maniacs.

I was just thinking he would probably be quite embarrassed today by some of the things he posted on here. :hehe:

[Burney]

Not denying he is as mad as a bag of frogs though

There's a lot of it about, la. The artificially polarised nature of modern politics has sent a lot of people quite mad.

[Norn Iron]

Twitter?

Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?

Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.

I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?

Speaking of racists. Did anyone see the black man/woman on 'This week' with Andrew Neil? (S)He doesn't like us white folk.

[Sir C]

Not denying he is as mad as a bag of frogs though

They're not mad; they're entirely lucid and they're focussed on what they want to achieve.

Calling them mad gives them an excuse for promulgating their evil ideology. Don't excuse them, la. Hold them accountable.

[Burney]

Speaking of racists. Did anyone see the black man/woman on 'This week' with Andrew Neil? (S)He doesn't like us white folk.

I did see that. He seemed not to have noticed that he is - to quite a large extent - white himself.

I'm sick of being told that white people are terrible and evil. It's just sour grapes - it's not our fault we're better than other races. :shrug:





:walksawaywhistling:

[Luis Anaconda]

They're not mad; they're entirely lucid and they're focussed on what they want to achieve.

Calling them mad gives them an excuse for promulgating their evil ideology. Don't excuse them, la. Hold them accountable.

Nah - they're just misguided

[World's End Stella]

Ok, he was always more than a moderate lefty in terms of his *politics*, but he was also politically incorrect, not impartial to the odd jocular racial or ethnic stereotype, and didn't really strike me as the pearl clutching type at all.

You thought that someone who casually referred to members of our armed services as 'murderers' was a moderate, mainstream lefty?

:hehe:

[Luis Anaconda]

You thought that someone who casually referred to members of our armed services as 'murderers' was a moderate, mainstream lefty?

:hehe:
I actually think he is more moderate on Twitter than he was on here

[SWv2]

You thought that someone who casually referred to members of our armed services as 'murderers' was a moderate, mainstream lefty?

:hehe:

I suspect he was channelling his Irish Republicanism at this time.

[Ash]

I suspect he was channelling his Irish Republicanism at this time.

:music:
Thirteen dead!
Nothing said!
No more Bloody Sundays!
:music:


and so on

[Burney]

:music:
Thirteen dead!
Nothing said!
No more Bloody Sundays!
:music:


and so on

‘Nothing said’? Fùckers wouldn’t shut up about it for 40 years.

[Ash]

‘Nothing said’? Fùckers wouldn’t shut up about it for 40 years.

Actually, that reminds me. Speaking of left-footers have you seen Lucy Worsley's programme on The Glorious Revolution? Neither glorious, nor a revolution, was her take on it, which is fair comment, I think, but she did downplay the importance of the Bill of Rights imo. Probably because of her general fawning over royalty, and I suspect a secret papist traitor to boot. :judge:

[Burney]

Actually, that reminds me. Speaking of left-footers have you seen Lucy Worsley's programme on The Glorious Revolution? Neither glorious, nor a revolution, was her take on it, which is fair comment, I think, but she did downplay the importance of the Bill of Rights imo. Probably because of her general fawning over royalty, and I suspect a secret papist traitor to boot. :judge:

Yeah, it’s hardly a new take, tbh. The Glorious Revolution is best described as the very conscious decision of GB plc to appoint a non-executive chairman of the board. It was a masterpiece of political and religious pragmatism.

[SWv2]

‘Nothing said’? Fùckers wouldn’t shut up about it for 40 years.

Cold blooded murder of innocents for which no person has ever been held responsible or convicted.

It's a fúcking disgrace is what it is, but let's not go down that road again.

Tiocfaidh ar lá.

[Burney]

Cold blooded murder of innocents for which no person has ever been held responsible or convicted.

It's a fúcking disgrace is what it is, but let's not go down that road again.

Tiocfaidh ar lá.

No such thing as 'innocents', sw. What were they doing on the street at an illegal march? Looking for trouble, that's what. And they got it.

Granted, it came in the form of 7.62mm rounds from rifles with quite phenomenal stopping power - which might have been a bit excessive, but if they couldn't take a joke, they shouldn't have joined.

[SWv2]

No such thing as 'innocents', sw. What were they doing on the street at an illegal march? Looking for trouble, that's what. And they got it.

Granted, it came in the form of 7.62mm rounds from rifles with quite phenomenal stopping power - which might have been a bit excessive, but if they couldn't take a joke, they shouldn't have joined.

Harsh, in the extreme.

It is an incident for which your so called Great Britain should forever hang it's metaphorical head in shame.

"The civil rights march on Bloody Sunday was not, in fact, illegal and the British armed forces had no legal power to arrest anyone on the march, the inquiry has been told.

In a lengthy written submission to the Saville tribunal, the organisers of the march, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), allege that the then Stormont administration failed to give proper consideration to the legal situation.

NICRA has asked the inquiry to invite the former attorney general to the Stormont government of 1972, Sir Basil Kelly, to make a statement about whether he was, at any time, consulted on the legal aspects of the march and, if so, what advice he gave.

The march held on January 30th, 1972, was organised primarily as a protest against internment, which had been introduced the previous August. The submission now made on behalf of those who were executive committee members of NICRA in 1972 says it has invariably, but wrongly, been assumed that the march was the subject of an order banning all processions and marches.

However, no copy of any relevant ministerial order has been uncovered, it points out, and no order was promulgated at the time.

In the absence of any formal instrument under the hand of the relevant minister (then the unionist politician, Mr John Taylor), no order was legally in force, NICRA argues. "The march . . . was not, in fact, banned, even if the citizenry of Derry thought that it was defying a ministerial order in joining the march."

The submission notes the inquiry's solicitors have acknowledged that every effort has been made to discover a copy of the order, without success. Although it was an executive act of the Stormont government, there is no record of it in the Public Records Office in Belfast.

There is also nothing in the archives of the Widgery tribunal to indicate that a ministerial order was produced to show that the march was illegal."

[Ash]

Cold blooded murder of innocents for which no person has ever been held responsible or convicted.

It's a fúcking disgrace is what it is, but let's not go down that road again.

Tiocfaidh ar lá.

If it happened in Syria or Yugoslavia there would be calls for invasions, regime changes, war crimes tribunals and so on.

No reason to start talking foreign at us though.

[SWv2]

If it happened in Syria or Yugoslavia there would be calls for invasions, regime changes, war crimes tribunals and so on.

No reason to start talking foreign at us though.

Well quite. Now I was brought up during the troubles but am no flag waving republican, however to try and deny it as anything other than what it was, which is cold blooded murder, is blinkered and indeed extremely ignorant.

For shame Britain.

My final words on this subject.

[Burney]

Harsh, in the extreme.

It is an incident for which your so called Great Britain should forever hang it's metaphorical head in shame.

"The civil rights march on Bloody Sunday was not, in fact, illegal and the British armed forces had no legal power to arrest anyone on the march, the inquiry has been told.

In a lengthy written submission to the Saville tribunal, the organisers of the march, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), allege that the then Stormont administration failed to give proper consideration to the legal situation.

NICRA has asked the inquiry to invite the former attorney general to the Stormont government of 1972, Sir Basil Kelly, to make a statement about whether he was, at any time, consulted on the legal aspects of the march and, if so, what advice he gave.

The march held on January 30th, 1972, was organised primarily as a protest against internment, which had been introduced the previous August. The submission now made on behalf of those who were executive committee members of NICRA in 1972 says it has invariably, but wrongly, been assumed that the march was the subject of an order banning all processions and marches.

However, no copy of any relevant ministerial order has been uncovered, it points out, and no order was promulgated at the time.

In the absence of any formal instrument under the hand of the relevant minister (then the unionist politician, Mr John Taylor), no order was legally in force, NICRA argues. "The march . . . was not, in fact, banned, even if the citizenry of Derry thought that it was defying a ministerial order in joining the march."

The submission notes the inquiry's solicitors have acknowledged that every effort has been made to discover a copy of the order, without success. Although it was an executive act of the Stormont government, there is no record of it in the Public Records Office in Belfast.

There is also nothing in the archives of the Widgery tribunal to indicate that a ministerial order was produced to show that the march was illegal."

Meh. We've done much worse than that. Mind you, so has pretty much everyone else. :shrug:

In fact, the rioters - who caused the soldiers to open fire in the first place - broke off from the legal path of the march and started attacking soldiers with stones, etc. Turns out that attacking heavily-armed members of 1 Para wasn't a terribly good idea.

Ultimately, these were for the most part young men who were seeking trouble and trying to be billy big-bòllocks by rioting and attacking soldiers. I've little sympathy for people who do that and, if they don't like the consequences of their actions, that's too fùcking bad.

[Burney]

If it happened in Syria or Yugoslavia there would be calls for invasions, regime changes, war crimes tribunals and so on.

No reason to start talking foreign at us though.

:hehe: Don't you believe it. In Paris in 1961, the police murdered 300 Algerian immigrants and chucked them in the Seine. No-one gave a fück. These things happen as part of the 'savage wars of peace'.

[Burney]

Well quite. Now I was brought up during the troubles but am no flag waving republican, however to try and deny it as anything other than what it was, which is cold blooded murder, is blinkered and indeed extremely ignorant.

For shame Britain.

My final words on this subject.

The joke, of course, is that the rioters were banking on the idea that, if they attacked our troops, they wouldn't shoot back. On this occasion, they lost that particular bet. Too bad.

[Sir C]

The joke, of course, is that the rioters were banking on the idea that, if they attacked our troops, they wouldn't shoot back. On this occasion, they lost that particular bet. Too bad.

This always seems to me to be the missing part of the argument. I mean, if you chuck bricks at an armed man, what response do you expect?

[Burney]

This always seems to me to be the missing part of the argument. I mean, if you chuck bricks at an armed man, what response do you expect?

Well yes. But I'm pointing out the irony that the outrage about it stems from an expectation on the part of the republican rioters that - despite all their anti-Brit rhetoric - the British wouldn't behave like that because they're generally decent and you can lob bricks at them with impunity. So, in fact, the whole thing relies on an underlying assumption by rabid republicans that the Brits are generally decent and not likely to open up on them - even when they deserve it.

And generally, of course, they'd have been right. However, Paras are a bit different.

[PSRB]

Well yes. But I'm pointing out the irony that the outrage about it stems from an expectation on the part of the republican rioters that - despite all their anti-Brit rhetoric - the British wouldn't behave like that because they're generally decent and you can lob bricks at them with impunity. So, in fact, the whole thing relies on an underlying assumption by rabid republicans that the Brits are generally decent and not likely to open up on them - even when they deserve it.

And generally, of course, they'd have been right. However, Paras are a bit different.

A bit thick and prone to acts of immense violence with little provocation, in my experience

[Pokster]

A bit thick and prone to acts of immense violence with little provocation, in my experience

Irish or Para's?

[SWv2]

A bit thick and prone to acts of immense violence with little provocation, in my experience

I only ever said hello to you.

:-(

[Burney]

A bit thick and prone to acts of immense violence with little provocation, in my experience

Rough men who stand ready to do violence on our behalf, innit :shrug:

[SWv2]

Rough men who stand ready to do violence on our behalf, innit :shrug:

Good christ.

Get a grip man.

:hehe:

[Sir C]

A bit thick and prone to acts of immense violence with little provocation, in my experience

Patriots, you mean?

764

[PSRB]

Irish or Para's?

:rubchin: :hehe:

[PSRB]

Patriots, you mean?

764

Not around Aldershot in the late 80's

[Burney]

Good christ.

Get a grip man.

:hehe:

It's a George Orwell quote. "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

[Sir C]

Not around Aldershot in the late 80's

Oh, they're animals, and no mistake. A chap I knew who used to occasionally be sent to stay in barracks at Aldershot used to loosen the metal leg of his bed before going to sleep in the knowledge that, at some point in the night, he would almost certainly require a weapon to defend himself in the inevitbale fight, for, lacking an enemy, Paras will happily fight each other.

Some of the finest troops on earth, and all volunteers, of course.

[SWv2]

It's a George Orwell quote. "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

You sounded positively American in the lunatic way they view those who serve.

That is not a good thing, ever.

[SWv2]

Oh, they're animals, and no mistake. A chap I knew who used to occasionally be sent to stay in barracks at Aldershot used to loosen the metal leg of his bed before going to sleep in the knowledge that, at some point in the night, he would almost certainly require a weapon to defend himself in the inevitbale fight, for, lacking an enemy, Paras will happily fight each other.

Some of the finest troops on earth, and all volunteers, of course.

So fine they failed to defeat a ragged bunch of amateur freedom fighters.

:vsign:

[Sir C]

So fine they failed to defeat a ragged bunch of amateur freedom fighters.

:vsign:

Absolutely, thjat why you're living in the island of the Republic of Ireland including the top bit, bravely liberated by Paddy and Mick.

Oh.

:vsign:

[Burney]

You sounded positively American in the lunatic way they view those who serve.

That is not a good thing, ever.

Orwell didn't mean it like that. He meant it as a reminder to those who sneer at the armed forces that their freedom to do so is entirely reliant on the people they sneer at. Always worth bearing in mind, that - without going into paroxysms of military worship, of course.

[Burney]

Oh, they're animals, and no mistake. A chap I knew who used to occasionally be sent to stay in barracks at Aldershot used to loosen the metal leg of his bed before going to sleep in the knowledge that, at some point in the night, he would almost certainly require a weapon to defend himself in the inevitbale fight, for, lacking an enemy, Paras will happily fight each other.

Some of the finest troops on earth, and all volunteers, of course.

:nod: The Duke knew whereof he spake when it came to such chaps.

[SWv2]

Absolutely, thjat why you're living in the island of the Republic of Ireland including the top bit, bravely liberated by Paddy and Mick.

Oh.

:vsign:

Oh I am not claiming the Republican side won either. I don't think you will ever have heard me claim such.

Btw the island as such is merely Ireland, but then you knew that.

[Chief Arrowhead]

You sounded positively American in the lunatic way they view those who serve.

That is not a good thing, ever.

If it weren't for us, Seamus, you'd be speaking Deutsche; that is if they had bothered to cross another strip of water. Put that in your wee pipe and smoke it, Danny Boy.

[barrybueno]

oi oi Chief you old ****!

Yeah cheers for that £5b loan on the last day of the war, couldn't have done it without ya!

[Donald]

If it weren't for us, Seamus, you'd be speaking Deutsche; that is if they had bothered to cross another strip of water. Put that in your wee pipe and smoke it, Danny Boy.

Yeh great thanks for that. Now England (certainly London) is a 3rd world swamp. Personally I would have preferred speaking German in a civilized society. ****s.

[barrybueno]

jawohl mein Don, are you blonde and blue eyed tho?

[bbrian]

Yeh great thanks for that. Now England (certainly London) is a 3rd world swamp. Personally I would have preferred speaking German in a civilized society. ****s.

It IS you Floyd ...welcome back lad!

[7sisters]

I miss him . Is he still peppering his tweets with words like ennui and narrative ?