Labour U Turns Part 164

[SydneyRover]

And as I said before I saw the same thing with you and Glyn. When it come to who would tell the truth between you and Glyn I think you lose.

I just thought I would prove my theory correct is all, busted.

[SydneyRover]

post the link hound

[drfchound]

And as I said before I saw the same thing with you and Glyn. When it come to who would tell the truth between you and Glyn I think you lose.

I just thought I would prove my theory correct is all, busted.

WTF, it’s still on the forum.
Ive put it upside down so you can easily read it.

[SydneyRover]

The link to where it is on the forum hound

[SydneyRover]

And as I said before I saw the same thing with you and Glyn. When it come to who would tell the truth between you and Glyn I think you lose.

I just thought I would prove my theory correct is all, busted.

Post the link to the comment you made on the forum, put up or shut up hound

[drfchound]

The link to where it is on the forum hound

You really are embarrassing yourself now Syd.
Reply #479 tells you where it is and the photo taken this morning clearly shows it is still on the forum.
You know what, I know that I don’t share many points of view with Glynn but I think he would be thinking how silly you are making yourself look now.

[SydneyRover]

Don't be a little baby hound just provide the link to the comment shown by the screenshot with your name on the top, on the forum.

[drfchound]

Here it is:

drfchound
Forum Member
 
Posts: 28878
View Profile  Personal Message (Online)


Re: Labour U Turns Part 164
« Reply #98 on Today at 09:51:02 am by drfchound »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: drfchound on December 05, 2023, 08:01:59 pm
Quote from: SydneyRover on December 05, 2023, 11:32:16 am
But you don't want to work or live near a nuclear plant? It's safe for someone else to take the risk.

My brother worked at Sellafield for about a year and came home with more than he went with.

That might have been down to Sellafield Sue.

[drfchound]

There you go:

[Colin C No.3]

Syd’s out stood on a rock swinging a stick tied to a length of string. He’s phoning a friend.

[SydneyRover]

Syd’s out stood on a rock swinging a stick tied to a length of string. He’s phoning a friend.

I don't remember rolf sing that one col?

[Sprotyrover]

Congratulations Syd you made a complete Twit of yourself yet again!

[SydneyRover]

How did you go last night sprot, do tell?

[ravenrover]

Not wishing to fan the flames, and in all probability I got it wrong somewhere, but your photo of your post Hound says it reply 98 on the thread. I've just.looked back to see why Syd can't see it and this is post 98 on the same thread but 2 months earlier?

[albie]

Has Tory Chief Whip also been reported to the same committee as Starmer for the same reason?

Not that I'm aware of, RR.
Why would he be?

Did the Tories threaten the Speaker before he promoted the Labour amendment, I hadn't heard that?

[ravenrover]

I heard it reported that he told the speaker he would make all hell break loose if the speaker allowed the amendment. Would that be considered a threat?

[drfchound]

 

Not wishing to fan the flames, and in all probability I got it wrong somewhere, but your photo of your post Hound says it reply 98 on the thread. I've just.looked back to see why Syd can't see it and this is post 98 on the same thread but 2 months earlier?

Raven, mate, the one with post 98 was because the chat with Syd morphed into two threads this morning.
I did a screen shot of the post I had made on December 5th and tried to copy it onto the Labour U Turn thread but for some reason it ended up on the Electric Cars and Environment thread. If you look at the picture the next post says it is the Electric cars thread.
I did put all the info on the Labour U Turns thread which was the main thread on which this all started.
He has accused me several times of deleting that post and I just wanted to make sure he understood that I hadn’t done.
Replies 474,479, 482 and 487 gave him all the information he had asked for but he couldn’t grasp what he was being told.

[Sprotyrover]

Not wishing to fan the flames, and in all probability I got it wrong somewhere, but your photo of your post Hound says it reply 98 on the thread. I've just.looked back to see why Syd can't see it and this is post 98 on the same thread but 2 months earlier?

Raven, mate, the one with post 98 was because the chat with Syd morphed into two threads this morning.
I did a screen shot of the post I had made on December 5th and tried to copy it onto the Labour U Turn thread but for some reason it ended up on the Electric Cars and Environment thread. If you look at the picture the next post says it is the Electric cars thread.
I did put all the info on the Labour U Turns thread which was the main thread on which this all started.
He has accused me several times of deleting that post and I just wanted to make sure he understood that I hadn’t done.
Replies 474,479, 482 and 487 gave him all the information he had asked for but he couldn’t grasp what he was being told.

Syd has difficulty grasping reality!

[albie]

Raven,

Well, if Labour felt that the Tories had threatened the Speaker they could refer them to the Standards Committee, but as far as I know they have not.
That does suggest they do not agree with your comparison.

The "threat" under consideration is the allegation that Starmer (or the Labour Chief Whip) suggested to Hoyle that he would lose his job if he did not disregard protocol and call the Labour amendment before the main SNP motion.

There is an additional allegation that Starmer consulted with Israeli President Herzog, before approaching Hoyle to set aside the agreed procedure in favour of Labour.

As the SNP have now said that they will re-introduce their motion to the HoC, as the vote was not taken on the original ceasefire proposal, Keith is no further forward from his skullduggery...except that an irrelevant culture war battle on Islamic influence is now in full swing!

[Bristol Red Rover]

 I saw a post here just now and it's gone, probs just a glitch, didn't catch who it was from, said something like:
Sincere apologies Hound, I see it now,  can't imagine how I missed it, but I did and given the issue I possibly was feeling heated and made a mistake. I do value your posts, even if I disagree with 200% of them. Cheers fella, gotta dash,  me kangaroo's just escaped it's tether again. ROFL! 

[Bristol Red Rover]

Raven,

Well, if Labour felt that the Tories had threatened the Speaker they could refer them to the Standards Committee, but as far as I know they have not.
That does suggest they do not agree with your comparison.

The "threat" under consideration is the allegation that Starmer (or the Labour Chief Whip) suggested to Hoyle that he would lose his job if he did not disregard protocol and call the Labour amendment before the main SNP motion.

There is an additional allegation that Starmer consulted with Israeli President Herzog, before approaching Hoyle to set aside the agreed procedure in favour of Labour.

As the SNP have now said that they will re-introduce their motion to the HoC, as the vote was not taken on the original ceasefire proposal, Keith is no further forward from his skullduggery...except that an irrelevant culture war battle on Islamic influence is now in full swing!

Here's a clip of him admitting, then trying to cover up that he'd spoken to the Israeli President. It's notable that Sky deleted it. Absolute scandal.
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/02/23/starmer-admits-spoke-to-israeli-president-before-torpedoing-snp-gaza-motion-sky-deletes-vid/

[drfchound]

According to the Express, Starmer has been referred to the Privileges committee:

Keir Starmer referred to top parliamentary ethics watchdog by MP over Speaker-gate

“The Labour leader has been referred to the Privileges Committee, the Commons' most senior rule-enforcing body, over his alleged bullying of the Speaker

MPs are demanding an investigation into Sir Keir Starmer by the House of Commons’ Privileges Committee, after the Labour leader dodged key questions about his role in the Speaker changing Commons rules on Wednesday.“

[SydneyRover]

As the speaker and Starmer say there is nothing to see and 3 female mps have been given protection it should be a formality.

[ravenrover]

Not wishing to fan the flames, and in all probability I got it wrong somewhere, but your photo of your post Hound says it reply 98 on the thread. I've just.looked back to see why Syd can't see it and this is post 98 on the same thread but 2 months earlier?

Raven, mate, the one with post 98 was because the chat with Syd morphed into two threads this morning.
I did a screen shot of the post I had made on December 5th and tried to copy it onto the Labour U Turn thread but for some reason it ended up on the Electric Cars and Environment thread. If you look at the picture the next post says it is the Electric cars thread.
I did put all the info on the Labour U Turns thread which was the main thread on which this all started.
He has accused me several times of deleting that post and I just wanted to make sure he understood that I hadn’t done.
Replies 474,479, 482 and 487 gave him all the information he had asked for but he couldn’t grasp what he was being told.

I did say I might have it wrong :-]]

[drfchound]

Not wishing to fan the flames, and in all probability I got it wrong somewhere, but your photo of your post Hound says it reply 98 on the thread. I've just.looked back to see why Syd can't see it and this is post 98 on the same thread but 2 months earlier?

Raven, mate, the one with post 98 was because the chat with Syd morphed into two threads this morning.
I did a screen shot of the post I had made on December 5th and tried to copy it onto the Labour U Turn thread but for some reason it ended up on the Electric Cars and Environment thread. If you look at the picture the next post says it is the Electric cars thread.
I did put all the info on the Labour U Turns thread which was the main thread on which this all started.
He has accused me several times of deleting that post and I just wanted to make sure he understood that I hadn’t done.
Replies 474,479, 482 and 487 gave him all the information he had asked for but he couldn’t grasp what he was being told.

I did say I might have it wrong :-]]

Ha, yes I saw that.
Nice one.

[albie]

Looks like Keith has pulled the proposed New Deal on Workers Rights.

Here is the FT summary:
https://www.ft.com/content/fe1608d1-3a61-43a0-9c17-2868c40821c2

Sharon Graham from Unite reckons it is a goner!
https://nitter.poast.org/UniteSharon/status/1788231614427799593#m

[roverstillidie91]

Looks like Keith has pulled the proposed New Deal on Workers Rights.

Here is the FT summary:
https://www.ft.com/content/fe1608d1-3a61-43a0-9c17-2868c40821c2

Sharon Graham from Unite reckons it is a goner!
https://nitter.poast.org/UniteSharon/status/1788231614427799593#m

all 6 or 7 million union members should mobilise and vote against Labour which would cause some serious damage

[i_ateallthepies]

"all 6 or 7 million union members should mobilise and vote against Labour which would cause some serious damage"

And return a Tory government.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Democracy - where everyone votes for what they don't want believing what they do want is impossible, albeit inconvenient to the rulers.

How long before the choices we have in the United Kingdom two party system is between Ant and Dec?

[idler]

At least we have more choice here than Russia. However bad the choices are.