Prejudice mostly.
But also i dont see why "dirty mac" would let a`story like that go unchallenged......And as for Paul Foot......Sorry no i would never trust that man.....and before you ask......
Prejudice mostly.
Do you read Private Eye?
- Thread starter Balbi
- Start date
Prejudice mostly.
But also i dont see why "dirty mac" would let a`story like that go unchallenged......And as for Paul Foot......Sorry no i would never trust that man.....and before you ask......
Prejudice mostly.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So, "worthy" as in "you have to pay attention when reading" then!
Yep, the "joint editors" of Lobster split, and for about 2 years (about 4 issues) they put out parallel publications.
They probably covered the Kincora Scandal in greater depth than any other publication has, updating as new info emerges, over 3 decades, and yes, they named everyone whose name turned up in any investigations, because they made clear that they were investigating the "paedo ring" allegations from the standpoint of the allegations having been constructed by British intelligence to bring certain politicians and other ne'er do wells to heel. That said, they never downplayed any of the actual physical and sexual abuse that went on at the home, and that was covered up by the RUC because of McGrath's political connections.
Cos i would probably got the spelling of his name wrong.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
funny how your memory is suddenly 'improving'
So, basically, Scallywag reprinted some old disinformation regarding Kincora, and this makes it 'anti-establishment'.
Excuse me for not being convinced.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Kincora happened in the early to mid 1970s.
Id guess he knew that! But he was talking about the 80s there.
funny how your memory is suddenly 'improving'
So, basically, Scallywag reprinted some old disinformation regarding Kincora, and this makes it 'anti-establishment'.
Excuse me for not being convinced.
I love the way you constantly try and do that try and reduce everything down...
The thing is this is a thread about Private eye and whether its anti establishment....Now there are some like you who seem to believe it is and some like me who don't.
but now by your ridiculous comment claiming that you know i never read Scallywag!!!!! ( You Mystic you) It seems to be all about Scallywag.
The thing is Scallywag attacked not only the establishment over Diana,Portillo,Lilley,Paedophiles but also Private eye which it saw (probably rightly) as timidly pro establishment.
I am not at all suprised that you think Private eye is good. Your politics is anti establishment in the same way as Private eyes eg you like to moan about everything but there would only be one thing worse than the status quo for somebody like you and that would be political change.
In debate after debate whether its top pay in the public and voluntary sector or migration you always come out with spurious leftie defences on the status quo.
Crikey you dont say.....
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
no, it's a thread about whether one reads PE. It's there in the title, and the question. It's not about whether its 'anti-establishment', and i have never said it was.
Still, making bollocks up is the one thing you are any good at, so go wild young man.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
"He shows in graphic detail that dangerous terrorist fanatics were out and about on the fateful night - and they had a life-long grudge against the Fayed family. To them, Princess Diana was an adulteress - little more than a whore. Entirely dispensable. But Regan also argues graphically that the murderers could not have planned it or got away with it without the tacit knowledge of, or even the backing and connivance of, the British Super-Establishment to whom Diana was equally dispensable.
Her threat to the super-mandarins, the courtiers, arms-dealers and the Church had become too much to ignore. She held the future king under her spell and guarded him from the clutches of the Palace Machine. This was unpardonable. "
genius stuff, no hatstands in evidence at all, oh no.
Printing any old bullshit is not being 'anti-establishment', its just printing bullshit.
You'll be telling us that the Daily Express isn't anti-establishment next"He shows in graphic detail that dangerous terrorist fanatics were out and about on the fateful night - and they had a life-long grudge against the Fayed family. To them, Princess Diana was an adulteress - little more than a whore. Entirely dispensable. But Regan also argues graphically that the murderers could not have planned it or got away with it without the tacit knowledge of, or even the backing and connivance of, the British Super-Establishment to whom Diana was equally dispensable.
Her threat to the super-mandarins, the courtiers, arms-dealers and the Church had become too much to ignore. She held the future king under her spell and guarded him from the clutches of the Palace Machine. This was unpardonable. "
genius stuff, no hatstands in evidence at all, oh no.
Printing any old bullshit is not being 'anti-establishment', its just printing bullshit.
Great stuff Lord Belboid.
"He shows in graphic detail that dangerous terrorist fanatics were out and about on the fateful night - and they had a life-long grudge against the Fayed family. To them, Princess Diana was an adulteress - little more than a whore. Entirely dispensable. But Regan also argues graphically that the murderers could not have planned it or got away with it without the tacit knowledge of, or even the backing and connivance of, the British Super-Establishment to whom Diana was equally dispensable.
Her threat to the super-mandarins, the courtiers, arms-dealers and the Church had become too much to ignore. She held the future king under her spell and guarded him from the clutches of the Palace Machine. This was unpardonable. "
genius stuff, no hatstands in evidence at all, oh no.
Printing any old bullshit is not being 'anti-establishment', its just printing bullshit.
And what kind of evidence do you think they could have come up with if she was murdered?
Well since she obviously wasn't murdered and anybody who thinks she was is almost certainly a far right nutcase, who gives a shit?
Rod Sleeves
New Member
PE is clearly not anti-establishment, and I haven't seen anyone claiming seriously otherwise. But it is quite funny, genuinely outraged by corruption, and interesting.
I've never read Scallywag, and have only vaguely heard of it, so I can't possibly comment.
I've never read Scallywag, and have only vaguely heard of it, so I can't possibly comment.
Anybody who thinks Diana was murdered is a far right nutcase.........erm.....
Almost certainly so, yes.
Carry on like that your going to make yourself look as stupid as belboid.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
?? repeating an old post doesn't really do much to add to your credibility balders. i think it's clear to everyone but you you are talking bollocks.
Riklet
procrastinación
They've been losing half my issues since day one then...
As a subscriber, I only get it once a fortnight
Yeah I do, and it makes a good read usually, although sure, it can be a bit predictable. Still, a relative paid for the subscription and it gives some good laughs, so.. why not.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
probably evidence that she was murdered?
Yeah cos obviously that would be so so easy to come up with if she was.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
It is usually present when someone is murdered though, thats how they determine someone was murdered, instead of - for example - involved in a road traffic accident.
Similar threads
- Poll
