What's wrong with our Democracy

Are you his batman or something? And if you can proove I have suggested Catholics are plotting to take over the country do so!
Ahem....

Posted by BaldBleep on sunday 4th march 2012 @ 2151

@SG thats 'discrimination was based on the experience of bloody Mary and Catholic oppression, this prejudice safeguarded British democracy and our way of life through the proceeding centuries. Im happy for that particular predjudice to continue because its allied to my own predjudice.
On the vandalised British Military Cemetary thread as dated.

My Bold.
 
Incidentally while HM has the right to recall the ministers of her government, it is the speaker of the House of Commons, who makes the decision to recall, after representations from ministers.
 
So where does it say I suspect a Catholic takeover to take place? I dont like organised religion, in particular Catholicism. One thing does not mean the other.
 
As previously stated, I dont like any organised religion. Catholicism in particular due to its dogmatic approach. I'm glad we seperated from Rome, it did us good and allowed us to progress ahead of Europe. I'm happy for the seperation to continue.

Now toddle off, stonkers boots need a wipe.
 
As previously stated, I dont like any organised religion. Catholicism in particular due to its dogmatic approach. I'm glad we seperated from Rome, it did us good and allowed us to progress ahead of Europe. I'm happy for the seperation to continue.

Now toddle off, stonkers boots need a wipe.
Why don't you do a proper rebuttal of Stonker's post, something with a little more substance than 'Tosh'.

You could also do with some spelling lessons, something that us 'shoe shiners' know a bit about.
 
Anything to divert eh? So......wheres my statement about the imminent Catholic takeover then< or where you just fibbing?

Apart from the two facts, Blairs re-org of the House of Lords, and HMQ not recalling Parliament due to the expenses debacle (because its the Speaker who recalls), there wasnt much fact in it. Just his opinions, which are like bottom holes.
 
Anything to divert eh? So......wheres my statement about the imminent Catholic takeover then< or where you just fibbing?

Apart from the two facts, Blairs re-org of the House of Lords, and HMQ not recalling Parliament due to the expenses debacle (because its the Speaker who recalls), there wasnt much fact in it. Just his opinions, which are like bottom holes.
I thought it was very well written, opinion it may be but deserving a little more than a rude single word retort.
I happened to agree with quite a lot of it as well.

I tease you about your obvious sectarian bigotry and you get all upset.

Thank you.

You still can't spell.
 
You seem to have some sort of fixation with my chest? So Given that the Monarch hasnt recalled Parliament, at anytime on what do you base your supposition that the Monarch has been hamstrung by Blair's tinkering? [snip].
See my post #349.

With the 'outing' of the expenses scam, Parliament was incontrovertibly revealed to have been behaving outrageously for a prolonged period. Not just some of its members - most of them: in ways that would have cost any soldier (irrespective of rank) everything.

And the Queen - whose Parliament it [supposedly] is - acted decisively, firmly, and in the interests of the Nation by . . . . err doing sweet f#ck all.

If she was the CO, and they were her subordinates, all fiddling their CEA and travel expenses . . . . .

There is currently no accountability in British public life - not in Government, nor in the Departments of State, nor - as a result - in their subordinate Agencies or Services.

Which is why the House of Lords has seats filled by knighted former senior officers who should have been horse-whipped for running up the black hole in the Defence budget, and it is why the twat who presided over the atrocities that took place in the Staffordshire NHS is deemed to be the best bloke to run the NHS as a whole.

It's a madhouse. Here in the real world, that is.

In your wurrrld, the rules according to Doctor Pangloss appear to apply.

Well done for swinging that one: must be a cushy posting :thumright:
===
Stonkernote: Your 49" chest obsesses not one bit.

I'll confess to being slightly troubled by the thought of the waistline associated with it, and the prospects for your future well-being. NODUF: My local PCSO was [note past tense] of similar age and dimensions, and is currently worrying about his future employability, assuming he recovers from the sudden obesity-related illness that dam' near killed him last Autumn.
 
Sectarian as in pro protestant? Which part of ALL organised religion did you not understand. My spelling may not be top class but neither is your comprehension. You can agree with whatever you like, its all opinion unless backed by fact. Where apart from the 2 facts as described above, is the evidence? Because it is his opinion and not factually based, in my opinion its tosh.

I'm hardly upset, it was Stonker that went on a rant, and started to get personal, due to his tiny girls chest and vast operational experience, which I neatly avoided due to cowardice and being..........11. You have not proven your earlier statement about my alledged Catholic takeover rant. Any apology coming, an admittance of fibbing?

Single word retort??
 
Sectarian as in pro protestant? Which part of ALL organised religion did you not understand. My spelling may not be top class but neither is your comprehension. You can agree with whatever you like, its all opinion unless backed by fact. Where apart from the 2 facts as described above, is the evidence? Because it is his opinion and not factually based, in my opinion its tosh.

I'm hardly upset, it was Stonker that went on a rant, and started to get personal, due to his tiny girls chest and vast operational experience, which I neatly avoided due to cowardice and being..........11. You have not proven your earlier statement about my alledged Catholic takeover rant. Any apology coming, an admittance of fibbing?

Single word retort??
:biggrin:
 
Incidentally while HM has the right to recall the ministers of her government, it is the speaker of the House of Commons, who makes the decision to recall, after representations from ministers.
An authority she did not exercise, even when it was made plain that there was no level in Parlaiament that was not implicated in the abuse of the expense system.

Speaker - an MP - does not (well, should not) make the decision, when it is the probity of Members Of Parliament as a whole that is the issue.

You might want to look at ther Speaker's expenses record, and ask yourself if he's the right bloke to be deciding whether to convene disciplinary investigations against himself . . . .

Either The Crown is Top Dog or it is not.

If it isn't - and you seem to kind of accept that it is not - then who the f#ck is?

Under what circumstances would you expect them (whoever 'they' are?) to act on such a matter as ministers and other 'Honourable Members' [ . . .honourable? My 'arris] collectively, individually and institutionally conniving to defraud the taxpayer, by claiming money to which they were not properly entitled?
 
Stonker-Obviously desperate to get my 'measurements', I'm not telling, but I'm not fat if thats your ever so subtle dig. I wangled this cushy number because I asked for it.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top