Miliband's father

[Whitey Grandad]

Classic whattabouttery, Viking Warrior.

 

I don't buy any of those papers, so your point is lost on me. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. It's all propaganda, all agenda-driven and with the possible exception of the Socialist Worker (which again, I don't buy), all ends in a corporation or a government.

 

By all means continue to see things in terms of teams (hey, this is a football site after all) but know that you'll get f**king nowhere with that approach.

 

You're like monkeys throwing sh!t at each other in a zoo, never once wondering who put you in the cage.

 

Look the f*ck up.

 

Hooray, at least two of us appreciate the situation.

[badgerx16]

Oh, that's alright then. His stance is entirely justified because of his loathing of Margaret Thatcher. One can now clearly see how he might have been motivated to join the Navy during the War more because of his hatred of Hitler than his love for this country. How he must have been elated by every reversal our troops suffered during the Falklands campaign, the sinking of our warships, the killing of our soldiers, the indications that things were going badly and we might not be victorious. Mind you, he really must have been torn between his loathing of the Conservative Prime Minister and the tacit support that his wishes embodied for the Extreme right wing Argentinian dictator who began the war.

 

And I'm grateful for your guidance, that Thatcher only took us into that war to enhance her reputation. And I thought that she had achieved a Parliamentary majority in favour, with the support of the opposition based on a matter of principle, that the population was almost entirely comprised of British citizens who deserved to be defended by their mother country.

 

Superb rebuttal, Wes.

 

No it isn't, ( unless your comment is intended to be 'tongue in cheek' ). The 'rebuttal' is in support of a fabricated 'fact', which has been completely shot down.

[Batman]

Slating Maggie was fair game, this isn't?

 

 

I now see how it works

[bridge too far]

Slating Maggie was fair game, this isn't?

 

 

I now see how it works

 

No - no you don't

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Criticizing anyone for opinions they actually hold and/or express is probably 'fair game' as you put it - especially if they happen to have been holding high public office. Making up a bunch of disgraceful lies about anyone - lies that would clearly be libelous if the victim were still alive - is frankly beyond the pail.

 

This has nowt to do with your individual political stance be it to the left or right (I'm not a Labour voter) it is a question of ethics, both in the press and on here for that matter.

[CB Fry]

Slating Maggie was fair game, this isn't?

 

 

I now see how it works

 

This is about your fifth identical "this is the same as Maggie" reference in this one thread.

 

Unless you think Ralph Milliband, as the towering political figure of the age, deserved a full ceremonial funeral with full military honours, then it really ain't the same.

 

Ralph Milliband is in the paper because of who his son is now, not actually due to any social change he brought about. Which is zero social change. Because he was a freaking historian and lecturer. Not a three term prime minister.

 

 

I look forward to you saying "its just like Maggie innit" yet again on this thread in about three hours time.

[Viking Warrior]

s*** the bully boy pap has spoken and I'm quivering with fear .

Again you twist words for your own benefit pap

All I was trying to convey is that there are differing political political views conveyed which ever newspaper you read .

 

The times was meant to be a good balanced paper but no longer. It's image has been well and truly tarnished by a certain owner

 

I rarely read the national papers if at all just the press and journal .

Edited 6 October, 2013 by Viking Warrior

[Batman]

This is about your fifth identical "this is the same as Maggie" reference in this one thread.

 

Unless you think Ralph Milliband, as the towering political figure of the age, deserved a full ceremonial funeral with full military honours, then it really ain't the same.

 

Ralph Milliband is in the paper because of who his son is now, not actually due to any social change he brought about. Which is zero social change. Because he was a freaking historian and lecturer. Not a three term prime minister.

 

 

I look forward to you saying "its just like Maggie innit" yet again on this thread in about three hours time.

 

It's just like Maggie

 

There you go

 

(Might throw it in again after a page or two)

[aintforever]

I'm still waiting for Wes Tender to come up with the Ralph Milliband quotes where he says he wants British servicemen to die in the Falklands.

 

Come on Wes, what's keeping you...

[CB Fry]

It's just like Maggie

 

There you go

 

(Might throw it in again after a page or two)

 

I'm not bothered.

[Verbal]

As Paul Dacre, the editor of the Mail, has seen fit to raise the question of the patriotism, or lack of it, of Ed Miliband's father, what, you might wonder, did Dacre's father, Peter, do while Ralph was fighting the Nazis in the Royal Navy?

 

He was a gossip columnist for the Sunday Express.

[Sheaf Saint]

Slating Maggie was fair game, this isn't?

 

 

I now see how it works

 

No you clearly don't. The two situations are nothing alike. Maggie Thatcher was PM for 3 terms and drastically changed the face of Britain during her tenure. Some would say for the better but many, such as those who lost their livelihoods as a result of her policies, would say for the worse. Her economic ideals destroyed entire communities and therefore any criticism she received was genuine (to those making it, at least) because it was a direct result of her actions.

 

Ralph Miliband, on the other hand, was effectively a nobody. He may have had some political leanings that many find distasteful, but he never reached a position of power where he was able to implement those ideals. The public outcry against the piece in the Mail is not based on the notion of respecting the dead, it is centred on the fact that this was a blatant and calculated attempt by the Mail to smear the name of the current Labour leader by implying that he shares his father's Marxist beliefs.

 

We know you're not stupid delldays, so why do you insist on making out that you are by pretending that you cannot see the difference between the two situations?

Edited 6 October, 2013 by Sheaf Saint

[Wes Tender]

Quentin Letts: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.”

 

I am indebted to Verbal and View from the Top for their assurances that Letts has got this wrong, that Miliband senior was not furious that we beat the Argie right wing dictator in defence of our fellow countrymen in the Falklands. I based my opinion, (with caveats of ifs and buts) on what Letts was reported as saying, but like those two, I ought to have read Miliband's biography verbatim so that I would be able to base my thoughts more precisely on what he actually said and furthermore what he actually believed, having undergone a total volte face in his mature years, to his youthful stance on his desire that losing a war would do us good.

 

Aintforever:

Come on Wes, what's keeping you...

What kept me was having a life outside of this forum. It being the weekend, I like to spend time with family and friends, enjoying some leisure time. Is that a problem with you? Whilst we're at it, was it you who made the scurillous accusation that Thatcher only went to war with the Argies to enhance her reputation? I'll await your evidence to support that opinion.

[trousers]

No you clearly don't. The two situations are nothing alike. Maggie Thatcher was PM for 3 terms and drastically changed the face of Britain during her tenure. Some would say for the better but many, such as those who lost their livelihoods as a result of her policies, would say for the worse. Her economic ideals destroyed entire communities and therefore any criticism she received was genuine (to those making it, at least) because it was a direct result of her actions.

 

Ralph Miliband, on the other hand, was effectively a nobody. He may have had some political leanings that many find distasteful, but he never reached a position of power where he was able to implement those ideals. The public outcry against the piece in the Mail is not based on the notion of respecting the dead, it is centred on the fact that this was a blatant and calculated attempt by the Mail to smear the name of the current Labour leader by implying that he shares his father's Marxist beliefs.

 

We know you're not stupid delldays, so why do you insist on making out that you are by pretending that you cannot see the difference between the two situations?

 

To attract c.100 word replies from other posters?

[View From The Top]

I am indebted to Verbal and View from the Top for their assurances that Letts has got this wrong, that Miliband senior was not furious that we beat the Argie right wing dictator in defence of our fellow countrymen in the Falklands. I based my opinion, (with caveats of ifs and buts) on what Letts was reported as saying, but like those two, I ought to have read Miliband's biography verbatim so that I would be able to base my thoughts more precisely on what he actually said and furthermore what he actually believed, having undergone a total volte face in his mature years, to his youthful stance on his desire that losing a war would do us good.

 

Aintforever:

What kept me was having a life outside of this forum. It being the weekend, I like to spend time with family and friends, enjoying some leisure time. Is that a problem with you? Whilst we're at it, was it you who made the scurillous accusation that Thatcher only went to war with the Argies to enhance her reputation? I'll await your evidence to support that opinion.

 

Just accept the fact you were wrong, as you often are.

[Wes Tender]

Just accept the fact you were wrong, as you often are.

 

I was quoting Letts, with as I say caveats of ifs and buts. So technically it is he who would be wrong, if indeed he is. Did you read the entire biography to ascertain what his views were on the Falklands? I would have thought that a political sketch writer like Letts would have done so before writing that, but maybe he didn't, or perhaps it was a matter of interpretation. A lot of political opinion is, you know. But if you and Verbal did indeed read the entire biography in order to spout forth authoratively on every facet of Miliband senior's life and political philosophy, then you are truly zealots.

[pap]

s*** the bully boy pap has spoken and I'm quivering with fear .

Again you twist words for your own benefit pap

All I was trying to convey is that there are differing political political views conveyed which ever newspaper you read .

 

The times was meant to be a good balanced paper but no longer. It's image has been well and truly tarnished by a certain owner

 

I rarely read the national papers if at all just the press and journal .

 

I don't know if you've had any actual experience with bullying, but typically, it's most purely represented when a mob descends onto a smaller group of individuals, normally one, using the sheer weight of their own ignorance to try and diminish their victims. I'm having trouble reconciling that with my post, which was largely a call for people to stop bickering over relative nonsense and actually determine what the real problem is.

[pap]

I was quoting Letts, with as I say caveats of ifs and buts. So technically it is he who would be wrong, if indeed he is. Did you read the entire biography to ascertain what his views were on the Falklands? I would have thought that a political sketch writer like Letts would have done so before writing that, but maybe he didn't, or perhaps it was a matter of interpretation. A lot of political opinion is, you know. But if you and Verbal did indeed read the entire biography in order to spout forth authoratively on every facet of Miliband senior's life and political philosophy, then you are truly zealots.

 

F**k me mate.

 

Humility is an easier option.

[buctootim]

As Paul Dacre, the editor of the Mail, has seen fit to raise the question of the patriotism, or lack of it, of Ed Miliband's father, what, you might wonder, did Dacre's father, Peter, do while Ralph was fighting the Nazis in the Royal Navy?

 

He was a gossip columnist for the Sunday Express.

 

priceless.

[buctootim]

I don't know if you've had any actual experience with bullying, but typically, it's most purely represented when a mob descends onto a smaller group of individuals, normally one, using the sheer weight of their own ignorance to try and diminish their victims.

 

Bit like conspiracists do to people who have lost limbs in a bombing you mean?

[View From The Top]

I was quoting Letts, with as I say caveats of ifs and buts. So technically it is he who would be wrong, if indeed he is. Did you read the entire biography to ascertain what his views were on the Falklands? I would have thought that a political sketch writer like Letts would have done so before writing that, but maybe he didn't, or perhaps it was a matter of interpretation. A lot of political opinion is, you know. But if you and Verbal did indeed read the entire biography in order to spout forth authoratively on every facet of Miliband senior's life and political philosophy, then you are truly zealots.

 

Doesn't take much research regarding Miliband Snr and his views on the Falklands. It also doesn't take much intelligence to workout that if he had said anything even resembling the statements you made up that the Mail and other publications would have been very quick to publish them. They didn't because only in your limited mind were they even uttered.

[Wes Tender]

A request for support to a petition by the self-publicising cockroach Alistair Campbell:-

 

This week the news has been dominated by the Daily Mail’s coverage of Ed Miliband’s father - in which the paper said he "hated Britain".

 

Alastair Campbell, former comms advisor to Tony Blair, went on the BBC's Newsnight to debate the story. Instead of Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail’s editor, coming to the studio his deputy was put forward. The Daily Mail spokesman said the coverage was justified because Ed Miliband seeks to be Prime Minister and so it was in the public interest - while others argue it was an unjustified attack on a dead man who fought for his country.

 

Campbell has started a petition on Change.org issuing a challenge to Paul Dacre to go on TV and debate the story and the Mail’s role in public life. He says: “I’m hoping that if enough of us call on him to do so, Paul Dacre will agree to come into a TV studio and debate, face to face, why he thought it was appropriate to trash the name of a dead man who fought for his country”.

 

What do you think? Would you like to see these two major public figures debating on TV?

 

Click here to add your name to call for a TV debate between Campbell and Dacre.

 

Or if you disagree, join the conversation on the Change.org Facebook page.

 

The Change.org Team

 

I'm sure that some of you on here will appreciate the opportunity, in the same way that it is a great opportunity to have a pop at the odious Campbell, who must be extremely naive to believe that a petition, regardless of how many signatures it attracts, will bring Dacre to a face to face debate with him. I'm sure that there must have been numerous occasions when the press had wished to have a face to face debate with some Labour Minister or Blair and were palmed off with the hypocrite Campbell spinning the story. He is plainly only doing this to raise his profile, which is currently as yesterday's man, returned to semi-obscurity, certainly not the "major public figure" described by change.org.

[solentstars]

Doesn't take much research regarding Miliband Snr and his views on the Falklands. It also doesn't take much intelligence to workout that if he had said anything even resembling the statements you made up that the Mail and other publications would have been very quick to publish them. They didn't because only in your limited mind were they even uttered.

 

Agree and anyway the daily hate has been shown up big time for its hatred of everything and a own goal has a lot people did not know of its historical support of Nazism in the 1930s but I suppose they do cater for there readership .don't think there is another reactionary newspaper like it in the market.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[pap]

Bit like conspiracists do to people who have lost limbs in a bombing you mean?

 

No, more like the people who diagnose Aspergers over the Internet.

 

Incidentally, I was speaking with someone who works with people with Aspergers. She didn't agree with your diagnosis. Apparently, most people who have it are lacking in social skills.

 

Most people I've told about your accusation have burst out laughing. The rest called you a c**t.

[CB Fry]

Remarkable passionate defence of the Daily Mail and journalists in general (and arepolitical sketch writers of all things) from Wes Tender on this thread. Which is odd because the rest of the time he's falling over himself to be pious and pompous around his default position that all newspapers make everything up and are lying scumbags all day long.

 

A tremendous volte-face which in no way makes Wes Tender look like a clueless bandwagon jumping hypocritical moron. In no way.

[buctootim]

No, more like the people who diagnose Aspergers over the Internet.

 

Incidentally, I was speaking with someone who works with people with Aspergers. She didn't agree with your diagnosis. Apparently, most people who have it are lacking in social skills.

 

Most people I've told about your accusation have burst out laughing. The rest called you a c**t.

 

Well you have some kind of issue Pap. Narcisissm is certainly a part of it. Do you realise most of your posts are about you - how a brave lone crusader (you) triumphs over the bullies (everyone else) because he is only one who can see the truth. It happens regardless of the issue. Anyway you've hijacked enough threads already so please **** off out of this one.

[CB Fry]

 

Most people I've told about your accusation have burst out laughing. The rest called you a c**t.

 

If someone started talking to me about what someone said to me on a football web forum, I'd burst out laughing too.

[pap]

Well you have some kind of issue Pap. Narcisissm is certainly a part of it. Do you realise most of your posts are about you - how a brave lone crusader (you) triumphs over the bullies (everyone else) because he is only one who can see the truth. It happens regardless of the issue. Anyway you've hijacked enough threads already so please **** off out of this one.

 

Mate, you're not the boss of me. You weren't even the boss of your wife. Therein lie all your issues.

[buctootim]

Mate, you're not the boss of me. You weren't even the boss of your wife. Therein lie all your issues.

 

Ooh cutting, no really I'm hurt by the comments of the only internet poster I know who looks like a troll but isnt one. Boss your wife do you, how very 21st century. No wonder your kids and wife have decided they prefer you working in the US.

 

Anyway enough about you, again.

Edited 6 October, 2013 by buctootim

[pap]

Ooh cutting. Boss your wife do you, how very 21st century. No wonder you kids and wife have decided they prefer you working in the US.

 

Anyway enough about you, again. No pictures thanks - the only internet troll known to look like one.

 

I'm strategy and direction. She's day to day. It's called a partnership. I'm not qualified to diagnose medical conditions over the Internet, but embittered fifty-somethings who've made bad choices are easy enough to spot.

[buctootim]

Seems to me she's got the strategy spot on. Anyway kids and I are off to Chartwell for the afternoon. Enjoy the Target carpark on your tod.

[pap]

Seems to me she's got the strategy spot on. Anyway kids and I are off to Chartwell for the afternoon. Enjoy the Target carpark on your tod.

 

Yeah, try not to rage up too much. I know it's hard when you've only got yourself to blame. Recognition is the first step.

[CB Fry]

Seems to me she's got the strategy spot on. Anyway kids and I are off to Chartwell for the afternoon. Enjoy the Target carpark on your tod.

 

I wonder what Pap's mates will make of that abuse?

 

I bet they just love him recounting his forum encounters down at the drive-thru.

[pap]

I wonder what Pap's mates will make of that abuse?

 

I bet they just love him recounting his forum encounters down at the drive-thru.

 

I prefer the bars myself, CB Fry. Take the Brit out of Britain, etc.

[CB Fry]

I prefer the bars myself, CB Fry.

 

What, the bars of the cage that only you can see?

[pap]

What, the bars of the cage that only you can see?

 

How does that sh!t feel in your hand, monkey boy?

[CB Fry]

How does that sh!t feel in your hand, monkey boy?

 

Please can you tell your friends I called you an autistic mentalist loony-man headcase? And then let me know if they laughed or not.

[pap]

Please can you tell your friends I called you an autistic mentalist loony-man headcase? And then let me know if they laughed or not.

 

I can do one better. I can just send them a link to the site. Not guaranteed that you'll get a laugh, but I'm pretty sure you'll get the other reaction.

[badgerx16]

Can anybody explain to me what, exactly, the above 13 posts have added to the debate ?

[pap]

Can anybody explain to me what, exactly, the above 13 posts have added to the debate ?

 

Demonstration of bullying for VW?

[CB Fry]

I can do one better. I can just send them a link to the site. Not guaranteed that you'll get a laugh, but I'm pretty sure you'll get the other reaction.

 

Please, please send them a link.

[OldNick]

There are some nasty characters on this thread. To throw up people's private lives during this debate is pretty sick. Grow up the 3of you

[Viking Warrior]

Pap I read your posts god knows why . But I like to consider my views against other posters who may see a situation differently . Sadly in your case it's your perception and nobody else's that you want to focus on .

I have my views whether you agree or not . At least accept them not pour scorn on them because you have a totally different mind set than myself and others .

[pap]

There are some nasty characters on this thread. To throw up people's private lives during this debate is pretty sick. Grow up the 3of you

 

It's almost indefensible, I agree. However, I entered this debate on-topic, and stayed on topic until Tim decided to bring the off-topic stuff into play.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not proud - but it's a fire vs fire thing.

 

Sorry you had to see it.

[OldNick]

It's almost indefensible, I agree. However, I entered this debate on-topic, and stayed on topic until Tim decided to bring the off-topic stuff into play.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not proud - but it's a fire vs fire thing.

 

Sorry you had to see it.

It's ok Pap, I have seen the gang mentality against you before, I had the same when I was supporting the club when Burley was under fire. It was like a pack of wolves, but I just did my stuff.

None of you come out with any credit but at least I can see you have some regret.

We are all Saints fans at the end of the day that should count for something......stupidity perhaps

Edited 6 October, 2013 by OldNick

[pap]

Pap I read your posts god knows why . But I like to consider my views against other posters who may see a situation differently . Sadly in your case it's your perception and nobody else's that you want to focus on .

I have my views whether you agree or not . At least accept them not pour scorn on them because you have a totally different mind set than myself and others .

 

It can be argued that everything is perception, VW.

 

I wasn't pouring scorn on you as a poster, but I'm tired of the two rights make a wrong argument that is repeatedly peddled on here, along with the abrogation of personal responsibility that is an inevitable part of "team politics".

 

You would not let a murderer off the hook because someone had committed a more brutal murder. The Mail doesn't get off with spinelessly attacking Miliband because of the Mirror's stance on Thatcher. I don't accept the "they're all at it" defence, largely because that's part of the problem. The funny thing is, I have mates across the political spectrum. Put them in a room together and usually, there is more they'll have in common that separates them.

[Jonnyboy]

Not a good page for left wing fraternity

[pap]

Not a good page for left wing fraternity

 

No, it's not. I honestly don't like being this much of a c**t.

 

By all means, attack the points on the thread - but when you've got people who should clearly know better dredging up crap from other threads solely to diminish a poster, when it has nothing to do with what I've written here, it is difficult to hold back - because if you say nowt, their point stands.

 

It's becoming borderline obsessive, and yes, we should all grow up.

[CB Fry]

No, it's not. I honestly don't like being this much of a c**t.

 

By all means, attack the points on the thread - but when you've got people who should clearly know better dredging up crap from other threads solely to diminish a poster, when it has nothing to do with what I've written here, it is difficult to hold back - because if you say nowt, their point stands.

 

It's becoming borderline obsessive, and yes, we should all grow up.

 

I'd like to point out I have no idea what you've said about the Milliband issue on this thread.

 

But yes, people who think the folk that attempted to help Lee Rigby were actors paid by the UK Secret Service should definitely grow up.

 

We're, like, all monkeys in a cage, maaaaaan.

[Viking Warrior]

Pap re I wasn't pouring scorn on you as a poster, but I'm tired of the two rights make a wrong argument that is repeatedly peddled on here, along with the abrogation of personal responsibility that is an inevitable part of "team politics".

 

I agree with the two rights don't make a wrong sentiment .but it's easy to despise one group against another without considering that an individual may well have a valid point. The problem is about communication . What one person says and what the other person wants to hear are not the basis for a could discussion or debate . The important aspects is the bit in the middle what's is actually being conveyed .

 

I read the match thread . There is a number of different opinions . For me he was on the pitch because MP believes he can do a job for the team . If he felt he couldn't perform he wouldn't be selected . He was selected . He's not a fans favorite but he still gets selected . So back to the topic in hand you make some good and valid points pap