• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

And the actualy letter which says nothing about actually reopening and rexamining the case. Just a we got your letter and I'm following up on it.

 
What would expect of a rag that knows it would be out of business if it start reporting factual news.
 

If these excuses were in a sketch show you'd think they were a bit far fetched

"No no I wasn't at the party I was just interviewing a new parliamentary entertainer - see I heard that she was the dancing queen, young and sweet, only 17, but still had to go through the formal interview process before offering her the contract"
 

If these excuses were in a sketch show you'd think they were a bit far fetched

"No no I wasn't at the party I was just interviewing a new parliamentary entertainer - see I heard that she was the dancing queen, young and sweet, only 17, but still had to go through the formal interview process before offering her the contract"
Next it will be:

"I got lost looking for the toilet."
"In your own house?"
"Erm...yes."
 
Can governments be guilty of corporate manslaughter?
I don't think they can. Hence why it's so difficult to criminally prosecute public officials in cases like this. - see David Duckenfield for his Gross Negligence role in Hillsborough.
 
Just for full context I didn't really want to share the lies.



This was at 14:24 yesterday plenty of time for the Mail to know it was falsehood.

yep just sharing the front page so peeps can see it. I wouldn't wipe my arse with the front page of the Mail.
 
Next it will be:

"I got lost looking for the toilet."
"In your own house?"
"Erm...yes."
A perfectly reasonable reaction to excessive alcohol consumption. Then again, my housemate, who has supposedly been living here for over half a year, asked where the fridge and freezer were whilst stone-cold sober so...
 
A complete 180 from the UK government following their somewhat alarming remarks earlier in the week (alarming in the context of let's not mis-speak ourselves into propaganda coups for the Kremlin).


They should leave the talking to more measured heads like Blinken and this fellow.


Still no confirmation on proper tanks that I've seen. If the ground dries out in summer and Ukraine can't fight on flat open land with tanks then I think it'll be overly optimistic to talk of this war being one lasting years.
 
A complete 180 from the UK government following their somewhat alarming remarks earlier in the week
Which ones were those?
I've not been seeking out any news, just seeing what comes up on socials/reddit, but I've not seen anything alarming about the war in Ukraine from Bojo and his rabble
 

Was only a matter of time really. Probably would still have gone out there despite Truss's words. But still negligent of her to say them as Foreign Secretary.
 
Looks like various companies in Europe are bowing to Russias demands to pay for gas in roubles (and the rouble is already back to where it was before the sanctions, it really hasn't been hit at all).

Again the EU nations were displaying an incredible lack of foresight in chasing cheaper Russian resources whilst also being too feeble to do anything to dissuade Putin. Europe has to decide as a whole if it's actually going to toughen up and be a force on the world stage, prepared to use military where necessary, or if it's going to be in the "play nice" club and avoid confrontation or imposing their will but accept other major powers have them by the ********.

Russia & Saudi control the EU energy supplies
China control the goods supply

Europe seems to have positioned themselves as an economic powerhouse with disproportionately little clout. Does anyone really fear EU sanctions or action in any form? The combined EU economies would be the largest in the world and yet it doesn't feel like that at all because of how badly they have hamstrung themselves with their naivety. It's always all talk from Europe but at all times they leave themselves a little loophole to actually get around action that would require having a ******* spine.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't really read like anythings changed?
The newer article says UK hasn't sent them long range weapons not that they aren't allowed to use them
My take is it is an intentional clarification by the defence minister in response to the earlier remarks. To say you aren't sending jets, tanks etc as it might escalate things (by killing Russians not actively in an aggressive manoeuvre) on the one hand but then say its okay to bomb Russians in Russian territory (supply lines come with humans) with British weapons doesn't seem overly consistent a message.
 
Oh dear....

Maybe I should be worried about twitter takeover a bit more, the idea that the right hasn't been moved at all in the past 8 years is massively wrong.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top