Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Outrage as Tory MP claims she felt threatened by 'thug gang' of campaigning OAPs and disabled people

This does show the level of proof demanded by righties - they show a commendable suspicion of statistics and phacts in general when these disagree with their world view, but will accept any old bollocks as a general rule because they saw something like it once several years ago.
 
... the problem is a genuine right party would be too radical in the UK ( or much of europe) as the british are relucantant to let people fall by the wayside int othe gutters and trailer parks as seen in the US

Yeah, we're funny like that, us British.:facepalm:

And this is a "problem" because?
 
Lletsa got banned for similar stuff to this. And unlike this sad wanker he was a decent poster most of the time.

He's been reported for that comment by a number of posters, so hopefully he can be banned too.

I don't usually call for people to be banned, but that sort of hatred against vulnerable people who have had their support taken away from them (and that includes me personally and a number of other posters here to my knowledge) has no place here.

Ironic that he's managed to outdo the original "thug" comment which inspired this thread in the first place.
 
I'm assuming that there are no mods available ATM, but hopefully someone will check out the reported posts and take appropriate action some time soon.

 
I suspect that if he responds, it'll be along the lines of it having been compiled by leftie Civil Servants, thus proving he's never worked in a central government department, or met a Civil Servant.

how aobut the following , far more correct in terms of the rules of scientific evidence comments

1. potential / actual bias of source - i.e. the editorial spin of the
2. correlation / causation issues - or does previous sanctions indicate issues with playing by the rules ? can;t tell that without access to the source materials

i also note how they hide the comments from Anne Begg pointing out the correlatiuon / causation issues ...

it;s also interesting how secrtetive some people are, yet i nthe next breath demanding that others ' personal information is published far and wide .
 
Thread ban = happy to oblige. Hang on while I find the button
...I was looking forward to using my mighty banhammer, as though I were a Norse thundergod sent to smite the unworthy.

norseman.jpg


'OOOOO-DIIIIIIN!'

Fuck, yeah...
It's really not that good.
 
how aobut the following , far more correct in terms of the rules of scientific evidence comments

1. potential / actual bias of source - i.e. the editorial spin of the
2. correlation / causation issues - or does previous sanctions indicate issues with playing by the rules ? can;t tell that without access to the source materials

i also note how they hide the comments from Anne Begg pointing out the correlatiuon / causation issues ...

it;s also interesting how secrtetive some people are, yet i nthe next breath demanding that others ' personal information is published far and wide .

DWP are not releasing the source materials, despite a select committee and the FoI commissioner telling them to. Have a go at the DWP for that, and ask yourself, if it's all so fine and innocent, why doesn't the DWP want to release the information?

Anne Begg's comments aren't hidden, what a weird thing to say, there's like 4 paragraphs of quote from her in the article, partway through/towards the end of the article, as is usually the case.

Still, shows how much interest you have in anything beyond your own ideology, whatever you say about wanting evidence it's clear that you'll dismiss anything that is put in front of you, and claim it's faults are down to lefties or somesuch nonsense, even when it's the fucking DWP who are withholding the info you want. They are indeed very secretive, why might that be?
 
Back
Top Bottom