42 thoughts on “Thursday’s Papers

  1. Tea And Brexits

    Why do Irish judges allow reporters from the Irish Sun, Irish Daily Mail, or Irish Daily Star into their courtrooms? What is the point or public interest?

    1. GiggidyGoo

      That point has been made time and time again here. The FG shills though come out in force to muddy the waters. Your link doesn’t work for some reason, but the original report was in the Independent https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/government-to-lose-privileged-access-to-brexit-deal-talks-38748342.html
      I’m sure there have been groupings after various meetings, similar to the NATO ones, laughing at Kenny, Noonan and their protégés, Varadkar and Donohue.

  2. Cú Chulainn

    I the Star is back on the start of a loop again: Psycho eagle .. it’s meant to be Killer eagle, psycho seagull.. ah well, change is as good as a rest.. as for scary Essex bird.. is that even legal..

    1. Rob_G

      Qu’est-ce que c’est
      Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-far better
      Run run run run run run run away ohhhhh ohhhhhhh aiaiaiaiaiai

  3. GiggidyGoo

    The images of ‘world leaders’ gathered in a group, at a NATO, laughing and making fun of the president of the US shows how suitable they are for office. Blacked up Trudeau in the middle of it of course. Children doing men’s jobs (same as some of our own Ministers)
    Wait for the retaliation. Trump doesn’t suffer fools, and he is in a lot more powerful position than any of those schoolchildren.

      1. GiggidyGoo

        Johnson knew this was being recorded – you can see him looking directly at the camera at one stage. I don’t think he said anything himself.
        Cute hoof.

    1. Listrade

      Retaliation? Because they were laughing at him? To quoth “Children doing men’s jobs”. You’re ok with that? You’re ok with a world leader retaliating just because some people were laughing at him?

      1. GiggidyGoo

        Did I say anywhere that I’m OK with it?
        In your rush to have a go at me, you neglected to comprehend what i’ve written. Clap clap. !

        1. I Never Comment Anymore

          Well it was complete nonsense
          They are laughing at him openly because they know he can actually do fupp all

        2. Nigel

          Well you characterise perfectly normal grown-up behaviour (grown-ups laughing at the ridiculous behaviour of another grown-up) as that of children, while the ill-graced bad-tempered thin-skinned response is that of someone who ‘doesn’t suffer fools gladly,’ a phrase no-one with a straight face would ever use in relation to the current president of the US, so while the inference might be incorrect, it’s not exactly a wild leap. In the spirit of your insistence on the primacy of text, I note you still haven’t actually said whether you’re ok with it or not.

        3. GiggidyGoo

          Yep Nigel. Welcome to the Attack the Poster group. My post had nothing to do with whether I think what Trump may or may not do is OK or not. If he does something to retaliate, then at that stage ask me the question. Listrade, for some reason known to himself, chose to attack the poster rather than the post. A lot of that going around here, so you’ll be welcomed with open arms.

          I don’t believe, however, that world Leaders should be discussing in a group (when they think they’re safe from prying media) the merits or not of another world Leader. If you think that’s normal conduct of world leaders, then bully for you. If they haven’t the guts to say it to him directly in public, then that tells its own story.

          1. Nigel

            Once again it’s hard to miss the respect you afford to Trump and his behaviour in contrast to the disproportionate criticism you level at the behaviour of other world leaders. It is funny, though, considering the nature of your commentary on politics, that you’re so sensitive to what you perceive to be attacks on yourself that you retract into a defensive prickly little ball, like a cute wee hedgehog.

          2. GiggidyGoo

            And where, pray tell, do you come to the conclusion regarding respect or not for Trump? Maybe take a little time to actually read (and understand) what I’ve written. It wasn’t about Trump per se, but about the caliber of other so-called leaders.

            But don’t let that get in the way of your penchant to attack posters rather than posts.
            Now scuttle back into little circus world – there’s a shortage of clowns I believe.

          3. Nigel

            I’m literally going by the language you use in your post and nothing else. The actual words you actually use. If respnding to the actual words that you actually use is a personal attack, then no wonder you think every reply to you is a personal atack. Nice personal attack on me, by the way. But I’m a big boy so I don’t mind, prickly.

          4. GiggidyGoo

            The language used was English. Its your own problem if you can’t understand it.
            If you have an issue with the words I used fair enough. If you can’t discuss the subject though then that’s also your problem.
            Love – Hedgehog. The prickly one.

          5. Nigel

            Yes, the language of English which you used to express your thoughts and opinions and to which I responded, a process that seems to drive you into mental gyrations and high dudgeon.

          6. GiggidyGoo

            You still can’t understand the post obviously then? But still keep attacking the poster.
            So maybe you’d clarify then what you thought I wrote. Not what you’d like to think I wrote. (Can you understand those last two sentences?)

          7. Nigel

            I’m not attacking you. If you want to know what I was responding to, reread the comments containing the response. If you still don’t understand, take a paracetemol and go to bed. Or roll about in some leaves and hide under a shed.

          8. GiggidyGoo

            Enlightening response. Obviously you don’t even understand your own contributions. I have no problem rolling in leaves and going under a shed, as long as you retire to your own abode – under a bridge.

  4. Bud Flanagan

    Damning indictment on Jeremy Corbyn’s handling of anti-semitism in the Labour Party with the final submissions of 70 Jewish Labour Movement activists towards the investigation into the party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

    ” Seventy serving and former Labour officials have turned whistleblower and given sworn statements to the official investigation into the party’s antisemitism crisis, The Times has learnt.

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been inundated with testimonies from Labour Party staff, officials on the national executive and elected representatives since it announced in May that it was investigating the party.

    In addition it has been sent more than 100 testimonies from party members, many Jewish, about antisemitism that they say they have suffered or witnessed at party events. ”


    It’s worth point out the 70 represent a third of all full-time party officials.
    And that only one other party to be thee subject of such an investigation by the EHRC is the BNP.

    1. Tea And Brexits

      Isn’t there a British website / redtop comments section especially for your kind of resentment?

      1. Nigel

        No, don’t be silly, Bro. Stuff like this MATTERS to people who might vote Labour, that’s why it’s such a big deal, whereas stuff like this is catnip to Tory voters.

        1. Bud Flanagan

          I dunno.
          I reckon anti-semitism matters to voters of all political persuasions.
          It’s excusers like you who allow it to flourish in the first place.

          1. Nigel

            I’d say it only matters to Tories as a club to beat Labour. Given what they’ll tolerate, even celebrate, from BoJo, to say otherwise is a joke.

          2. f_lawless

            Hilarious – talk about hoisted with your own petard.
            Tries to make a point about the principle of “guilty until proven innocent” but when his hypocrisy is pointed out to him, tries to brush aside that same principle. You couldn’t make it up

  5. Bud Flanagan

    I think you’re confusing someone who holds the view that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic and someone who is specifically charged with a hate crime and is presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence.
    The latter goes against the principle of natural justice.The former is simply an opinion.
    The two are completely different

    1. scottser

      banging on about corbyn’s anti-zionist stance is one thing. misrepresenting it as anti-semitism is completely another. as for ignoring johnson’s obvious and explicit past racism just exposes you as the silly troll that you really are.
      it’s like you don’t even try any more charger.

      1. Bud Flanagan

        What Boris racism is this,old boy ?
        Would that be the ” letterbox ” comment in the piece he wrote supporting the right of Muslim women to wear the niqab and burkha which is banned in many European cities.
        Or the ” picanninnies with watermelon smiles ” he wrote in a piece castigating the West’s colonial attitudes to modern Africa ?
        Have you actually read the articles or were your knuckles too sore from dragging along the floor to use a computer ?
        Perhaps you don’t admire the most diverse British Cabinet ever to be appointed where Boris gave the two highest offices of state after his to children of immigrants.
        Compare and contrast with Jeremy Corbyn where Jewish MPs have been forced out, Labour staffers complaining of widespread anti-semitism under his watch and today the extraordinary sight of the GMB union having to explicitly warn the Labour party not to victimize those whistle-blowers.
        You,pal,are an ignorant silly.

  6. Verbatim

    OMG to think I nearly missed the story of Trump and the laughing stock.
    What actually happened at these NATO meetings, what when down is been hidden behind the media smoke screen, to hide what?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link