Restore Britain.

[Wisbech Eagle]

What ever gave you the idea that I give a f*** what you think?

Once again, you laughably think you are in a position to lecture. You are lower than whale s*** to me.

I was 'tried' by a bunch of lefties. It was called the BBS. They tried and failed to win an argument.

I know you don’t care a f***! It’s really obvious. I don’t care a f*** what you think either!

I do though care about lies and libellous comments being directed at me and I will call them, and those you make them, out every time they appear.

I am not lecturing you on anything. I am defending my integrity from despicable lies.

As I don’t use the BBS I have no way of knowing how people like you get treated there. Knowing you here is enough though to know you wouldn’t survive long in any well balanced normal forum.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Welfare, support. Both amount to spending tax payers money.

The rest is bunk. Just excuses. We are being held to ransom and that must end.

You specifically said welfare. I can read, even if you cannot and just assume.

There is a big difference between welfare and providing support to asylum seekers, though I doubt you understand it.

The rest is true. You just don’t like it.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I know you don’t care a f***! It’s really obvious. I don’t care a f*** what you think either!

I do though care about lies and libellous comments being directed at me and I will call them, and those you make them, out every time they appear.

I am not lecturing you on anything. I am defending my integrity from despicable lies.

As I don’t use the BBS I have no way of knowing how people like you get treated there. Knowing you here is enough though to know you wouldn’t survive long in any well balanced normal forum.

Stop apologising for those covering up rape gangs and cheering on left wing loons, and you won't get stick.
I'm not wasting time trawling through posts, but I'm sure other posters may recall the sickening things you have said in the past.

This is a balanced forum. It has all sorts of people and opinions. If you don't like mine, then put me on ignore. You are getting close to going back there.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

You specifically said welfare. I can read, even if you cannot and just assume.

There is a big difference between welfare and providing support to asylum seekers, though I doubt you understand it.

The rest is true. You just don’t like it.

What I understand is that you are excruciatingly tedious.

 

[McAhuna]

Not really, McAhuna.

It's a worry that you automatically throw insults about like that and even more unnecessary to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a paedophile or paedophile and rapist apologist: it just makes you look rabid.

Also a bit holier than thou, in my opinion. Never an attractive trait, at the best of times.

Still simmering about the Epstein thread?
A harrowing discussion of horrific child abuse. A thread where your only contributions were to insinuate the discussion was anti-semetic, demand proof of Epstein's crimes, and finally ....whine that you were the victim. That thread?

I didn't say you were a peadophile. I said you sounded like Epstein's defence lawyer and were a virtue signalling knob. Relatively mild rebukes in the circumstances I thought.
I understand others were much more vitriolic, one sending you personal messages calling you an arsehole, and another calling you a t*** and telling you to f*** off.

Clearly, your attitude on that emotive thread went down like a bucket of sick and sent a previously civilised discusion off-track with some hostile responses sent in your direction.
Some people might self-reflect on why that was, and might reflect on the need to treat the subject matter with more appropriate sensitivity in future. Not you though. You'd throw on a Hawain shirt to a funeral and then complain that the mourners weren't treating you with sufficient sensitivity or respecting that you were the main character.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Stop apologising for those covering up rape gangs and cheering on left wing loons, and you won't get stick.
I'm not wasting time trawling through posts, but I'm sure other posters may recall the sickening things you have said in the past.

This is a balanced forum. It has all sorts of people and opinions. If you don't like mine, then put me on ignore. You are getting close to going back there.

I have never apologised for anyone covering up any kind of crime, let alone rape gangs. You are a seriously confused man who fails to understand that attempting to explain why the police and social services might decide to handle things in ways you disapprove of isn’t “covering up”. It’s simply trying to rationalise and understand motives.

Are “left wing loons” any worse than “right wing loons”, a category of person you very obviously are intimately familiar with? They are all loons after all. I prefer to be free of both and cheer on neither.

You won’t trawl through posts because you know that no matter how hard you looked you would fail to find anything. Asking the band of brothers to jump into the dirty water with you and share their prejudices tends to confirm that.

This forum is far from balanced. There are just a few who take the opposite view to the majority, all being subject to endless insults for daring to point out hypocrisy.

I have a few on ignore whose arguments were either ridiculous or insults intolerable. I don’t though ignore those who libel me. They need to be corrected.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I have never apologised for anyone covering up any kind of crime, let alone rape gangs. You are a seriously confused man who fails to understand that attempting to explain why the police and social services might decide to handle things in ways you disapprove of isn’t “covering up”. It’s simply trying to rationalise and understand motives.

Are “left wing loons” any worse than “right wing loons”, a category of person you very obviously are intimately familiar with? They are all loons after all. I prefer to be free of both and cheer on neither.

You won’t trawl through posts because you know that no matter how hard you looked you would fail to find anything. Asking the band of brothers to jump into the dirty water with you and share their prejudices tends to confirm that.

This forum is far from balanced. There are just a few who take the opposite view to the majority, all being subject to endless insults for daring to point out hypocrisy.

I have a few on ignore whose arguments were either ridiculous or insults intolerable. I don’t though ignore those who libel me. They need to be corrected.

Shut up. Your self importance is hilarious.

Time to put you back where you belong. Bye.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

What I understand is that you are excruciatingly tedious.

Don’t libel me and there will be no need for me to reply. Replies you have no obligation to read. Everything you do here is entirely in your control.

 

[Stirlingsays]

What a cop out! That’s like asking a kangaroo court to dispense justice. I can just imagine how you would react to being tried by a bunch of “lefties”.

No, you prove what you claimed or apologise for unsupported assertions and libellous comments. Whenever challenged you cannot deliver. I think you are full of prejudice filled shite, which only you have the ability to disprove.

I think I remember you making comments on the attempted assassination of Trump that gave the distinct impression that you didn't care how Trump was removed from power.

I think in any 'court' case (a childish notion) your comments on this matter during that time wouldn't weigh in your favour.

 

[Glazier#1]

Still simmering about the Epstein thread?
A harrowing discussion of horrific child abuse. A thread where your only contributions were to insinuate the discussion was anti-semetic, demand proof of Epstein's crimes, and finally ....whine that you were the victim? That thread?

I didn't say you were a peadophile. I said you sounded like Epstein's defence lawyer and were a virtue signalling knob. Relatively mild rebukes in the circumstances I thought.
I understand others were much more vitriolic, one sending you personal messages calling you an arsehole, and another calling you a t*** and telling you to f*** off.

Clearly, your attitude on that emotive thread went down like a bucket of sick and sent a previously civilised discusion off-track with some hostile responses sent in your direction.
Some people might self-reflect on why that was, and might reflect on the need to treat the subject matter with more appropriate sensitivity in future. Not you though. You'd throw on a Hawain shirt to a funeral and then complain that the mourners weren't treating you with sufficient sensitivity or respecting that you were the main character.

Simmering? No, not at all. If you were to read my exchanges with Stirlingsays subsequently, you'd see my response to what you accuse me of. Go back and read those exchanges and you'll see. No accusing anyone of anti-semitism. I'd be more thinking that you are the simmering vessel; I thought you'd put my posts on ignore yet here you are.

You accused me, though, of sounding like Epstein's defence lawyer; in other words an Epstein apologist - a massive slur. I did not "demand proof of Epstein's crimes". The only subject I questioned was concerning the 'Satanic' bit. Was that from his files? Certainly there have been a lot of rumours and claims but, at worst I was expressing my incredulity that such things could be true and that they need some form of proof. Let's face it, the claims are unbelievable in their monstrosity. Yet here you are adding a simple letter 's' to make it look like I was denying everything he did. Not only inaccurate but in bad faith, that.

That private "Arsehole" message was sent months ago and had nothing to do with the Epstein business.

That last comment about me wearing a Hawaiian shirt to a funeral is simply absurd. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see you dressed as the priest, though.

I find your attitude to be self righteous , if I'm honest, as if you have a monopoly on outrage and compassion. Some might call it virtue signalling, I dare say.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The only subject I questioned was concerning the 'Satanic' bit. Was that from his files? Certainly there have been a lot of rumours and claims but, at worst I was expressing my incredulity that such things could be true and that they need some form of proof. Let's face it, the claims are unbelievable in their monstrosity.

I think a position where you are shocked is a normal reaction to this.

I also didn't believe 'pizzagate' accusations when they first surfaced years ago now. It sounded Qanon to me and a flight of fancy.

I also have some time for your call for proof, there are people who have made statements on this, and I also note the difficulty of proof in a matter like this.

However, what has brought me back to a suspicion that 'pizzagate' has something to it (not the original claim around a pizza parlour) has been the.....what seems obvious to me.....use of code words by Epstein and his associates in the email releases.

For me it falls over the limit for sheer dismissal.....that's my position anyway.

Before you take a position against it....which was my position prior......Go look at the evidence base for 'pizzagate' from Epstein's emails.

If you look at what's been presented and still think it's nonsense then fair enough.

 

[McAhuna]

Simmering? No, not at all. If you were to read my exchanges with Stirlingsays subsequently, you'd see my response to what you accuse me of. Go back and read those exchanges and you'll see. No accusing anyone of anti-semitism. I'd be more thinking that you are the simmering vessel; I thought you'd put my posts on ignore yet here you are.

You accused me, though, of sounding like Epstein's defence lawyer; in other words an Epstein apologist - a massive slur. I did not "demand proof of Epstein's crimes". The only subject I questioned was concerning the 'Satanic' bit. Was that from his files? Certainly there have been a lot of rumours and claims but, at worst I was expressing my incredulity that such things could be true and that they need some form of proof. Let's face it, the claims are unbelievable in their monstrosity. Yet here you are adding a simple letter 's' to make it look like I was denying everything he did. Not only inaccurate but in bad faith, that.

That private "Arsehole" message was sent months ago and had nothing to do with the Epstein business.

That last comment about me wearing a Hawaiian shirt to a funeral is simply absurd. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see you dressed as the priest, though.

I find your attitude to be self righteous , if I'm honest, as if you have a monopoly on outrage and compassion. Some might call it virtue signalling, I dare say.

Yes, Stirling might have subsequently forgiven you. I suspect more to keep the peace, and enable the conversation to move on.

Me - Nah. I didn't hear any apology, just more 'Poor Me' main character syndrome attention-seeking from you. And here you go again on this thread.
Besides, you did make a clear insinuation of anti-semitism. A completely unjustified one. All the subsequent weasel words won't change that.
In the context of the subject, your derailing the conversation into virtue-signalling Woke BS was absolutely pathetic.

Yes, you asked for proof of crimes, sounding much more like Epstein's defence lawyer than someone who was genuinely interested and concerned. And yes, you were provided with some fairly horrific proof. But you didn't even acknowledge the evidence that was provided for you! - You completely ignored it and carried on whining about your own victim status. Kind of proving my suspicion that you weren't genuinely interested or concerned, but were only there to make petty, woke, point-scoring jibes.

Nobody has a monopoly on outrage and compassion, but it was pretty obvious that you had none at all on that thread. Your only pity was for yourself. Too late to paper over the cracks now. So you can do one as far as I'm concerned.

You got one thing right - I did say I'd put you on ignore. I don't know what went wrong, why I am still seeing your tedious posts. So I acknowledge I made a mistake on that aspect, which I will now correct by putting you on ignore again.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I think I remember you making comments on the attempted assassination of Trump that gave the distinct impression that you didn't care how Trump was removed from power.

I think in any 'court' case (a childish notion) your comments on this matter during that time wouldn't weigh in your favour.

There’s a surprise. Who else would be the first to plunge into the murky water and try to rescue his mate?

Your “impression” was wrong. It simply reflects the bias that is so prevalent here.

I certainly want Trump and Trumpism consigned to history. Unfortunately if Trump died soon we would get Vance, which would probably be even worse. Why then would I support his assassination? I don’t approve of the murder of anyone, in any circumstances. I want the law to deal with those who break it. I want the voters to deal with Trumpism, if Congress doesn’t first.

Who has mentioned “court”? Hint. Not me. Identifying libel doesn’t mean it’s necessarily sensible to take legal action. Pointing it out ought to be enough.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

With Reform, Advance UK and now Restore Britain…that is now three right of centre Political Parties and this is just going to split the vote and play right into Labours hands.

We need to get behind one alternative party, not split our votes across three of them!

 

[Stirlingsays]

There’s a surprise. Who else would be the first to plunge into the murky water and try to rescue his mate?

Your “impression” was wrong. It simply reflects the bias that is so prevalent here.

I certainly want Trump and Trumpism consigned to history. Unfortunately if Trump died soon we would get Vance, which would probably be even worse. Why then would I support his assassination? I don’t approve of the murder of anyone, in any circumstances. I want the law to deal with those who break it. I want the voters to deal with Trumpism, if Congress doesn’t first.

Who has mentioned “court”? Hint. Not me. Identifying libel doesn’t mean it’s necessarily sensible to take legal action. Pointing it out ought to be enough.

I'm just remembering your sentiments at the time.

I can't be bothered to research it, but whatever.

Not sure why you'd regard Vance as probably worse than Trump other than it meaning another term.

Personally I think Trump should step down due to his administration's.....and previous administration's covering and protection of criminals from the Epstein files and some of his other policies such as Greenland.

Trump was fun, but this really wasn't.

 

[Stirlingsays]

With Reform, Advance UK and now Restore Britain…that is now three right of centre Political Parties and this is just going to split the vote and play right into Labours hands.

We need to get behind one alternative party, not split our votes across three of them!

It's quite some time before a general election, time for things to shake out.

 

[Matov]

It's quite some time before a general election, time for things to shake out.

Advance are already effectively part of the Restore umberalla. Reform are the ones who need to come into the fold. Suspect the people at the top of Reform will not but that as time goes on, more and more grass-root support is going to switch. Restore are already on 10%, which is higher than the Lib-Dems, and the momentum is only going to grow. Despite the clearly co-ordinated media black out on what has happened over the weekend.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Advance are already effectively part of the Restore umberalla. Reform are the ones who need to come into the fold. Suspect the people at the top of Reform will not but that as time goes on, more and more grass-root support is going to switch. Restore are already on 10%, which is higher than the Lib-Dems, and the momentum is only going to grow. Despite the clearly co-ordinated media black out on what has happened over the weekend.

The mainstream left are so so desperate.

But it's inevitable.

It'll shake out, however it goes.....but until then it'll be fun.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I'm just remembering your sentiments at the time.

I can't be bothered to research it, but whatever.

Not sure why you'd regard Vance as probably worse than Trump other than it meaning another term.

Personally I think Trump should step down due to his administration's.....and previous administration's covering and protection of criminals from the Epstein files and some of his other policies such as Greenland.

Trump was fun, but this really wasn't.

That you make incorrect assumptions about my sentiments is hardly a surprise but they weren’t the direct, libellous assertions that were made by your mate.

Do you know Vance’s background and who controls him? Peter Theil having that kind of influence over US politics is potentially even more scary than Trump. When he has also been backed by Musk and David Sacks the billionaire class have him by the sphericals.

At least you seemed to have finally abandoned any lingering defence of Trump. Something you share with an increasing number in the USA. Trump having abandoned even the pretence of having any policies. He just has self interest and diversion.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Advance are already effectively part of the Restore umberalla. Reform are the ones who need to come into the fold. Suspect the people at the top of Reform will not but that as time goes on, more and more grass-root support is going to switch. Restore are already on 10%, which is higher than the Lib-Dems, and the momentum is only going to grow. Despite the clearly co-ordinated media black out on what has happened over the weekend.

Hardly. Only when measured by a highly dubious, extremely unrepresentative, snap poll. I bet many people in the country have not even head of Lowe and when they do won’t like his politics. They are very unlikely to steal votes from anyone on the left or in the middle. They will only split the hard right, primarily those currently in the Reform camp. They haven’t even got an organisation outside of Great Yarmouth and Musk throwing money at a far right party in the UK isn’t going to work.

There isn’t a “media blackout”. It’s just not very interesting, to anyone other than a small minority.